When Less Isn’t More: Why Over-Simplified Branding Can Cost You Distinction

Over the past decade, minimalism has become branding’s default objective. Visual identities have been stripped back, names shortened, and character sacrificed in the name of simplicity. But as more companies reduce themselves to a single word, a flat sans-serif, and a handful of neutral colours, I can’t help but ask: have we started confusing less with clarity?

We live in a world full of noise and clutter. Everyone and their AI-generated dog seems to be preaching the virtues of simplicity and focus. Yet some prominent brands appear to have taken that to mean stripping away their identity until there’s almost nothing left of substance.

Recently, I watched as the email platform we use, ConvertKit, rebranded to Kit. The company positioned the move as a natural evolution, not a cosmetic refresh. After more than a decade operating under a name tied to email marketing and conversions, the team argued that “ConvertKit” no longer reflected their broader ambition to serve creators beyond just conversion. The new name was intended to feel open, inclusive and flexible, a platform supporting every part of a creator’s toolkit.

Simplicity and memorability were at the heart of their rationale: a shorter, cleaner name that’s easy to say, spell and remember. They had also acquired the kit.com domain, a clear signal of intent and ownership. On paper, the reasoning made sense. But in chasing simplicity, I can’t help but think they’ve traded a clear positioning and distinctive name for one that could be applied to almost anything and belong to almost anyone.

A similar story played out with TransferWise, the international payments platform we use for cross-border transactions. In 2021, it became Wise, a name change described as a reflection of growth rather than reinvention. Having evolved from a money-transfer service into a multi-currency financial platform, the company wanted to move beyond the functional “transfer” association. As co-founder Kristo Käärmann put it: “We’ve outgrown our name.”

The new name retained a link to the original while evoking intelligence and trust. It’s neat, simple and scalable, but at what cost — customer goodwill and financial investment? Does “Wise” now sit among a sea of equally minimal, well-meaning fintech names such as Revolut, Plum and Atom? All modern, all smart, yet arguably indistinguishable and lacking clear positioning.

There are many others who have followed the same path: Dunkin’ Donuts to Dunkin’, Weight Watchers to WW, Standard Life Aberdeen to abrdn (and later, thankfully, back again). Each move has its own reasoning, often logical but rarely inspiring. As a brand consultant, I should perhaps be applauding these changes. And while I don’t share Marketing Professor Mark Ritson’s view that all rebrands are a bad idea, I do find myself questioning the point of many of these brand reductions.

The common thread for most of these rebrands seems to be the belief that a name or identity can no longer represent who they have become or where they are heading. That is sometimes true, but too often brand asset simplification is mistaken for clarification and evolution. Too much weight is placed on the logo or name to do the work that positioning and proposition should be doing. Defining the meaning behind the brand and guiding how it behaves is far more important than focusing purely on how it looks.

Clarity is not just subtraction. It’s also about distinction — seeing and expressing what makes a brand unmistakably itself. Removing words, heritage or texture might make something easier to manage internally, but that does not necessarily make it clearer to the outside world. I am all for decluttering brand communications and distilling meaning to its essence. It is very much how we think at Brandality. But our focus is always on distilling to distinction and a business’s authentic self, not reducing for convenience or in a short-lived attempt to combat boredom.

Minimalism, at its best, sharpens what matters. At its worst, it erases it.

Does it actually make a difference?

That is the question I keep coming back to. Does stripping brand assets to their bare minimum really strengthen distinctiveness and comprehension, or is it change for change’s sake? Could these companies not have evolved perfectly well under their existing names? TransferWise could have stretched its meaning through narrative and product design. ConvertKit could have redefined what “conversion” meant for creators, turning effort into income or ambition into action. Reduction was not the only route.

Rebranding at scale is disruptive. It takes time, money and focus. It resets SEO, changes perception and risks eroding goodwill built over years. The real question is whether the gain justifies the cost. In some cases, the change feels like part of a natural evolution. In others, it looks more like a solution in search of a problem. Often, the real issue lies in a lack of strategic clarity, not surface aesthetics.

The drive toward “less” often stems from a desire for modernity or a fear of being left behind or misunderstood. Yet sameness is the inevitable by-product of everyone following the same design logic. What begins as clarity quickly turns to conformity. When every brand has a single-word name, a geometric sans and neutral tones, distinctiveness suffers. The very thing simplification is meant to achieve, recognition, starts to erode.