Discourse or ‘Diss-course’?: cancelling criticism culture

This year, we’ve seen countless memes, articles, social media posts, and even TV segments about rebrands, but do we need to draw a bolder line when critiquing design work?

It’s no secret that many creative professionals have a bit of a love-hate relationship with LinkedIn. From virtue signalling and promoting hyper-productive hustle mentality to oddly placed anecdotes, the platform has become the subject of quite a few memes and TikTok parody videos.

Then, just as we seemed to be getting over the “cringe” aspect of it and started treating it as a professional platform, a culture of criticism emerged. You could even go as far as comparing it to what you might see on X (formerly Twitter), which is losing record numbers of users as a result of the toxic rhetoric that became commonplace on the platform in recent years (among other things).

In the world of design, there’s no doubt that this reprehension is being fuelled by seemingly controversial rebrands. Accusations of ‘blanding’, ‘wokeness’, and even just plain ugliness have circulated in relation to branding projects in 2024, but it all came to a head just a few weeks ago with the unveiling of the new Jaguar identity.

In a bid to explain why Jaguar got such a reaction, Brandon founder and CEO Richard Brandon says: “Established brands carry memory structures that people already associate with them, and they are crucial in the way consumers connect with these brands on an emotional level.
“Changing these can cause powerful responses and emotions, which always rise to the surface in these types of backlashes against rebrands.”

Perhaps the most baffling fact is that it is often the designers themselves who throw the first stone. Unfortunately, most posts on publications and social platforms are all about clicks and likes and being the first to jump on a story, which results in thoughtless comments and misinformed articles.

Those who know Creative Boom well know that we like to address a project’s challenges head-on—we ask, we listen, and we relay in what we hope is a positive and respectful way (yes, we’re breaking the fourth wall for this). We know we can’t change the way that the media landscape operates with one article, but we might just be able to convince a few people in the creative industries to think before they type.

Don’t expect another article about the Jaguar rebrand – I’m sure everyone is over that by now – expect insight from your peers and fellow designers on how you can promote a more positive culture of constructive criticism in our industry.

Copy nothing. #Jaguar pic.twitter.com/BfVhc3l09B

— Jaguar (@Jaguar) November 19, 2024

Copy Jaguar.

— Nothing (@nothing) November 20, 2024

Making the news

How often do rebrands make national news? And we’re not just talking about the creative press here; we’re talking broadsheets, radio and even TV.

There are a few stories that we will all remember for their controversy: the London 2012 logo, which Bloomberg accused of being “the worst in Olympic history”, the famous Guardian headline about Airbnb – “Is it balls, vagina or both?” – and Twitter changing over to X (does anyone actually call it that?).

Johnny Selman, founder and executive creative director of Brooklyn-based studio Selman, says, “Today, a rebrand is a recipe for a good public spectacle. It’s unfortunate that public gut reactions to rebrands trend negative, or maybe those are just the ones you hear about.”

Do you remember the last time a rebrand went viral and was being talked about on BBC Breakfast for being absolutely spot on? The sad fact is it just doesn’t happen.

The design and creative sector already has an image problem, as those outside the industry often see those roles and their output as purely aesthetic. But, as Jamhot co-founder Graeme McGowan says, “If we don’t value our industry and build it up, how can we expect anyone else to value it either?”

He adds: “I just find it so boring how every high-profile rebrand is met with a barrage of expert opinions, to the point of it being tedious in the extreme. For me, it’s the opposite of creativity – build things up, don’t tear them down.”

It’s easy enough to bash out a few critical comments from the comfort while hiding behind your computer screen. According to McGowan, the real challenge would be taking the discussions offline and actually showing people what you think is an example of a good rebrand. “Creation is challenging; criticism is easy. Discuss it over a coffee or a pint, but maybe don’t write a think piece on it,” he adds.

You sound like our legal team pic.twitter.com/NYu2HCZrmn

— Aldi Stores UK (@AldiUK) November 21, 2024

When meme turns mean

There’s no doubt that conversations online can easily become more heated and hurtful than if they took place in person. Even if you don’t mean it that way, people often can’t convey the right tone when trying to wrangle a bunch of words together to post an opinion on a rebrand.

London-based design agency Bloom’s associate creative director Stuart Witter admits that he does love “the creative tension that surrounds a controversial rebrand” and also enjoys the “rich seam of humour that usually emerges”.

While we all love a good meme, the lines too easily become blurred and valid debate quickly tips into viciousness. Witter says, “This slam culture means that the way to be visible is to simply be brutal, and the point of the critique or the debate gets quickly subsumed in what can too often feel like a competition in who can frame the most eviscerating takedown and get the most attention for it.

“Perhaps, for many, famous brands provide easy targets for people to vent their frustrations and their sense of powerlessness within a rapidly changing world, but we forget that underneath each brand, there are human beings whose work is being ridiculed.”

It might sound somewhat reductive, but if we live by the simple rule of ‘if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all’, then we might just break the culture of criticism and competition that has become so common in our digital world.

Go big or go home

Put yourself in the shoes of a CEO or CMO at a big brand, watching the backlash of the Jaguar rebrand unfold across the media. For want of a better phrase, I’d be absolutely bricking it if the time came for my company to rebrand and probably lean towards the safest and most risk-averse option available.

If companies are scared to stir things up even a little bit, that will make for some pretty boring design briefs for the industry.

Joey Camire, chief strategy officer at global agency SYLVAIN, agrees that brands are “especially desperate to stay in the margins, scared of the ‘digilantes’ that trail them, and terrified to make mistakes”, often resulting in “boring and predictable” results.
“Most brands have become vanilla and completely uninteresting because they’re thirsty for the right attention but going about it in all the wrong ways,” he says, adding that it leads to “a lack of consumer interaction with brands”.

Camire asks: “How do we help brands move past this weak-kneed rigidity? Can we all break out of the precious predictability cycle we’ve found ourselves in in search of new paths?”

Is the answer to find a more constructive way to communicate criticism? After all, Chicago-based studio Span partner John Pobojeski notes that, while studying, most designers are taught that constructive critique is how you get feedback to make your work better and is “a healthy part of how the profession moves forward”.

However, he believes that the current climate is being fueled by “diss-course” platforms and that design social media has embraced “a combative zeitgeist to exploit more clicks and attention”. Pobojeski says: It’s a competitive world out there, and creating arenas in which people can say their ‘fuck you’ with pith and shallow humour seems to be the goal of many publishing platforms these days.

“As a result, this climate really fosters ‘blandness’ and uniformity; safe solutions and gestures that ‘just work’ seem to get the most positive feedback.”

The recent Jaguar rebrand is a case in point—it demotivates brands to take creative risks. According to Pobojeski, McCoy’s work at Cranbrook, Tibor Kalman and Joe Duffy, the early days of Design Observer, and more recently the tremendous The Black Experience in Design are just a few examples of projects that challenge the status quo in a positive way.

“The difference in these was the level of thoughtfulness,” he notes. “Yes, debates got heated; opinions are strong – after all, this is design!”

Pobojeski calls for critique to be more “layered, nuanced, and thoughtful” and says that design media has a role in inviting more professional discourse. “And, as designers, we need to not fall for these silly traps and recognize that 150 characters in a comment forum is not an intelligent way to contribute to the dialogue,” he adds.

“Go to a conference and meet your peers face to face; discuss and debate issues; respectfully reach out via email and begin a dialogue rather than hiding behind a username. We all have a collective responsibility to change this climate.”

The bigger picture

Judging a rebrand based on a selection of images or a mood film is very much like judging a book by its cover. Yes, you can probably tell if it’s your kind of thing from the cover and blurb, but would you write a review on it solely based on that? No, you absolutely wouldn’t – so why do it when it comes to a rebrand?

Span partner and design director Bud Rodecker reinforces that we don’t see “the long nights, hard choices, or quiet fights” behind a piece of design work, adding that it always takes more effort than what a case study can convey.

He says, “It’s a wonder that any bold idea ever reaches the light of day, but, in the end—if the brand stands on solid ground and was born of true thought and honest purpose—the team should stand by it with pride.

“The worst thing is to see them give up when the first stones are thrown. We must remember that nothing new is born without courage; we must leave room for it to grow.”

While negative criticism isn’t unique to the creative industries, SIDE ST founder Maor Ofek feels that there’s something about creative work, like colours, visuals and stories, that makes it an easy target for everyone’s opinion.

“It’s important to remember that all creative work, whether a rebrand or campaign, starts with specific goals or motivations and, while listening to feedback and public opinion are important indicators and can spark meaningful insights, critiques often overlook the bigger picture,” he explains. Ofek adds that success should not be measured by “immediate reactions” but instead by “how effectively the work fulfils its purpose over time”.

The only way to cancel negative criticism is to lead by example. Maybe you should look out for the full case study or read a more in-depth article about a project; maybe you should wait for the dust to settle instead of trying to be first on the bandwagon. Or—as McGowan suggests—maybe it’s better to discuss it over a coffee or a pint rather than broadcasting it on social media.