A new trend has been emerging among marketers for some time now: debranding. It refers to a strategic shift or simplification in visual identity. Over the last few years, we’ve seen some great examples of brands opting for this approach, and I’ll share some of these later in this blog post. 

But why are brands opting for a debrand instead of a rebrand? What are the benefits and risks of doing it, and what does the future look like for debranding? In this blog, I’ll aim to answer all of these questions and look at why minimalism is on the return (thank goodness!).

What is debranding?

I see debranding as a ‘simplification process’ that usually involves a number – or a combination of – subtle changes to a brand’s visual identity. This might include changing or tweaking your logo, colour scheme, or fonts to create a more minimalist, simplified image.

The main goal or reason behind a debrand is to forge a greater connection with your audience – perhaps even making your brand more relatable by focusing on your core identity and avoiding flashy or complicated logos.

This is an absolute dream come true for me; I’ve always been a huge fan of minimalism in design. A quote that I’ve always lived by is “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” by Leonardo DaVinci.

What’s the difference between debranding and rebranding?

Rebranding usually involves a more comprehensive or complete overhaul of a brand. It’s not just the visual identity that can change; it might be a change of name, messaging, or tone of voice. This could be for several reasons, such as a change in brand direction, a new product range, or an acquisition or merger.

In its simplest form, debranding refines existing elements to enhance the simplicity or functionality of the visual identity.

Five reasons why brands opt for debranding

There are many reasons why a business or brand might decide to debrand. In this section, I will summarise the top five reasons.

1. Brand maturity: As a brand grows, its initial or, in some cases, its second visual identity may no longer represent who it is as a business. It might not fit its target consumer. Debranding can help mature the brand and portray a simpler, more professional image along its growth journey.

2. Consumer-centric approach: Debranding allows your brand to prioritise the customer experience without distractions. It can make the brand more customer-focused and relatable.

3. Simplification: You don’t need to overcomplicate your logo or visual identity. Removing complex elements can make it easier to recognise and ensure it can be used across different media, which is especially important in today’s digital age.

4. Modernisation: Of course, as time moves on, so must your brand. Debranding often involves updating a design to create a cleaner visual and, therefore, a more modern aesthetic better suited to the digital landscape.

5. Strategic repositioning: Perhaps the brand’s strategy or philosophy has changed. A debrand could signal this shift, aligning your visual identity with your new company goals or marketing position.

Debranding examples

Now for the best part—some examples of rebrands from the last few years. Many have been successful in their debrand efforts, but many have failed.  

Starbucks debrand

In 2011, Starbucks removed the “Starbucks Coffee” text from its logo. This is an interesting example. Some people saw the refocus on the iconic green siren as a half-hearted attempt at debranding. The reason I say people thought this was half-hearted is that they only implemented this on product packaging and digitally, not storefronts. For me, I don’t think it’s an issue. I quite like this example—and I love the coffee!

Dunkin’ loses the donuts

Another personal favourite of mine is Dunkin Donuts, a colourful and vibrant brand that’s effective but very simple. In 2018, Dunkin’ Donuts dropped the word ‘Donuts’ from its name and logo. They decided to implement this change mainly to emphasise its wider product range beyond just selling and making great doughnuts. This comes back to the strategic repositioning of a visual identity to align with a change in market position – a valiant effort at debranding.

A new typeface for Mastercard 

Mastercard simplified its logo by adopting a new typeface and structurally simplifying the interlocking red and yellow circles to help generate a more digitally friendly identity. This is a great example of a really simple change to a logo that doesn’t move too far from the original.

Lego fill in the gaps

You probably won’t have thought about Lego’s debrand attempt, and to be honest, most people won’t have even noticed it. However, in 1998, they implemented the most subtle changes to their logo. They filled in all the gaps between letters with the black background and made the yellow stroke around the border slightly thicker—that’s it. The type and colours are the same, but this fine-tuning brings more prominence to the wording.

Tropicana fails to meet the mark

Here’s a not-so-great example of a debrand. In 2009, Tropicana dramatically changed its packaging design and logo, replacing the graphics on the carton with a simple glass of orange juice. This failed attempt at modernisation backfired big time for Tropicana and actually led to an unrecognisable brand that significantly impacted sales. The reaction to its debrand led Tropicana to revert to its original packaging design, how embarrassing. I wonder how much money they lost?

Gap makes a quick U-turn

This is another fantastic example of a failed debrand attempt that serves as a cautionary tale in design and branding. In 2010, Gap introduced a new logo, abandoning the iconic blue box for a more generic type and blue square. Loyal customers felt lost, and their connection with the brand was strained. Would you believe it only took six days for Gap to revert to the original design? This defines the importance of aligning brand changes with your customer and their expectations, not to mention factoring in heritage.

Upfront planning, such as brand workshops and customer research, is an integral part of the rebranding and debranding process. Without this, you risk being wide of the mark—just like Gap. 

Fixing Jaguar’s rebrand FAIL

Here’s how I’d approach fixing the Jaguar rebrand disaster (with some epic music for good measure)! Since the launch of their rebrand, I’ve seen lots of content on LinkedIn, Instagram and websites with mixed reactions and I’ve been itching to get my hands on Jaguar’s rebrand fail!

Here’s how I would redesign the Jaguar logo, combining the best of their heritage with a modern twist and a simple debranding approach:

Debranding the Jaguar logo

I started by tracing the iconic Jaguar shape from their rebrand photo, refining the sharp edges this created. I then moved on to creating a simple logotype, using rectangles from the historic Jaguar logotype.

For me, this was all about respecting the brand’s legacy while making it fresh and exciting for new audiences. I have no issues whatsoever with Jaguar wanting to go a different route or reach new audiences, but personally, I would have created a sub-brand for their ‘new vision’ if that’s what they wanted to do – not throw an audience away overnight!

Risks of debranding

Debranding doesn’t always work out, and as you can see from my last two examples, it can have massively degrading effects on a brand. There are several risks associated with debranding, and I’ll outline them in this section.  

Loss of brand recognition: Removing or changing brand elements too drastically can confuse customers and dilute the recognition of an otherwise well-established brand identity.

Customer alienation: A debrand might cause long-term or loyal customers to disconnect from your brand. If it feels too different or less relatable, you might annoy them or, worse, lose them as customers.

Risk of misinterpretation: Simplifying a brand too much could lead to a misunderstanding. Some brands make the mistake of generalising their brand, making it less recognisable from the original. No one wants a generic brand.

Financial risk: Implementing a debrand can be expensive, especially for more prominent brands with multiple locations and platforms. If anything goes wrong along the way, there could be a massive price to pay and, in Tropicana’s case, a sales loss to go with it.

Operational disruption: Changing brand elements can also be a huge resource-sucker. Updating logos across packaging, printed media, and digital platforms is a big task that takes time and planning. If it’s not managed or implemented correctly, it could lead to logistical disruptions within a business.

The future of debranding

So, what does the future look like for debranding? I personally think the focus for all brands considering debranding should be to keep the customer and audience at their heart. In the main, only established businesses consider rebranding, which increases the risk and investment. 

It’s essential to keep it simple. The smallest of changes can have a big impact on a brand—just look at the Lego example for evidence of that. It’s not a massive change, but it had a big impact. Overcomplicating logos can cause confusion among customers, so remember to keep it simple.

The rise of AI in debranding

Could AI play a part in debranding visual identities in the future? Who knows? Perhaps AI could help tailor branding elements dynamically to suit individual user experiences or consumer preferences. AI could even predict trends and consumer behaviours for us, helping businesses and brands be proactive with their debranding efforts.

Imagine if your experience with a brand was totally unique and connected with you on a personal level. That would be cool, but, in my opinion, it could cause havoc. I have no idea whether this is even possible but it does scare me a little. However, it seems inevitable that AI will play a huge part in brand experiences in the future and could be exciting if done right.

The final word

Debranding is a minimalist approach to simplifying a brand’s identity to forge stronger connections with consumers. While this strategy can modernise a brand and make it more accessible, it’s not without its pitfalls. 

Notable mistakes by brands like Tropicana and Gap underline the delicate balance required for debranding. As we move forward, technologies like AI may further reshape branding by enabling more personalised and flexible visual identities.

If you’ve enjoyed reading this blog, you might also like: Why your logo shouldn’t be bigger.