Chasing identity trends is a costly trap

Every few years, a new visual wave sweeps through the design industry. A decade ago, it was flat design, followed by vibrant gradients, then rough 3D clay styles, minimalist logos without text, and most recently, logos generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in seconds. Each time, there are compelling arguments that this is the future direction. And each time, a layer of businesses spends money to redo their identity to keep up, only to realize three years later that they are facing the same question again.

This is not a story about which trends are right or wrong aesthetically. This is a story about money and time: what are you building, and how long will it last.

The true lifespan of an identity

A brand identity system built on the right foundation, meaning it has a clear strategy, distinctive assets, and practical operational guidelines, typically has a lifespan of 7 to 15 years. Not because the design does not change, but because that core foundation is strong enough to absorb necessary adjustments over time without needing to start over.

Conversely, when an identity system is built according to trends rather than identity, its lifespan is reduced to just 2 to 3 years. Trends come and go. When they leave, your identity goes with them. And each time you redo it, it is like starting from scratch in customers' memories, as what they recognized is about to disappear.

Signature assets: what you are building or breaking

Jenni Romaniuk, a researcher at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, measures brand distinctiveness by two dimensions: Fame (the extent to which buyers associate the asset with the brand) and Uniqueness (the extent to which the asset is not confused with competitors). A red logo is not distinctive just because it is red. A distinctive red logo is one that has a shape, proportion, and treatment so unique that just seeing a small corner lets customers know who it is.

Key point: distinctive assets are not something you declare, but something you accumulate through repetition. It takes time and consistency to imprint on the buyer's visual memory. Every time you make a significant change for trends, you not only incur redesign costs, but you also lose that accumulation.

Distinctive identity assets only create mental availability when repeated consistently. Consistency is the mechanism of memory, not an aesthetic choice.

Jenni Romaniuk, How Brands Grow Part 2

Why is an AI logo a sharp test?

AI logo generation tools are not technically bad. They can create visually appealing images, sometimes looking very professional. The issue lies elsewhere: these tools are trained on millions of existing logos, meaning the results they produce tend to converge on the most common shapes, color combinations, and treatments.

According to the Ehrenberg-Bass theory, this is precisely the opposite of what a distinctive asset needs. You cannot build Fame and Uniqueness with something readily available in the crowd. You build it with something different enough for people to recognize, and consistent enough for them to remember.

Moreover, most results from current AI logo generation tools do not qualify for trademark protection under Vietnamese and international intellectual property laws due to their originality and distinctiveness being debatable. You may be building something that cannot be legally protected.

Gradient, flat, 3D: a cycle that never stops

In 2013, Apple introduced iOS 7, and the entire industry rushed towards flat design. In 2017, gradients returned, with Instagram changing its logo leading a wave. From 2020 to 2022, rough and clay 3D designs appeared everywhere. From 2024 to 2025, minimalist logos without text and pure geometric shapes are being ordered by many. Each trend has arguments about why it fits the times, users, and current devices.

But brands that do not get caught up in this cycle, those that maintain core assets and only adjust at the application layer, are the brands that accumulate the strongest recognition over time. Coca-Cola does not change its red color and Spencerian typeface because gradients are in vogue. Nike does not change its swoosh because flat design is trending. This is not conservatism. It is a clear understanding of what they are protecting.

Refreshing is not redoing: the most important boundary

There is a significant difference between maintaining a system and rebuilding from scratch. Mastercard spent 20 months researching before removing the text from its logo in 2019, as at that time, 80% of respondents recognized the symbol of two circles without needing the name. They did not change their identity. They simply simplified the application after the distinctive asset had become strong enough.

That is the right way to refresh: adjust the technical layer (optimize for screens, adjust color balance for digital environments, update image processing) while keeping the core foundation intact. This is completely different from changing the entire identity because this year's trend looks more appealing.

The right question is not "does my identity look outdated?" but rather "is my distinctive asset still recognized and correctly associated with the brand?" If so, you are maintaining it. If not, you need to consider the real reasons before deciding what to do.

What truly determines longevity

An identity system does not age due to time. It ages because it is not operated. Brand guidelines printed and left in a drawer, new employees unaware of their existence, printing partners using incorrect color files, social media using fonts inconsistently, websites and catalogs not matching. After two to three years of this disorganization, the identity truly looks old, not because the design is outdated but because no one is executing it consistently.

This is why a good identity system must include an operational layer, not just a visual layer. Guidelines must be practical enough for non-designers to use. Design tokens (a set of color values and typography defined consistently across all platforms) need to be integrated into the digital process from the start. And someone must be responsible for keeping that system alive.

A brand does not fade away because competitors surpass it. In many cases, it fades due to internal erosion from a lack of accumulated consistency over the years. Chasing visual trends every few years is merely a way to accelerate that process.