Logo redesigns of 2016: evaluating before-and-after examples
A practical assessment of notable 2016 logo redesigns, focusing on vector artwork structure, file delivery and what evaluators should check in before-and-after comparisons.
Contents
What the 2016 redesign record shows for vector logo work
The essential answer is that 2016 produced several high-profile logo redesigns whose before-and-after examples illustrate a recurring tension: simplified marks often look cleaner at small sizes and in digital placements, but the change can reduce distinction or create public backlash when too much recognizable detail is removed. For vector logo evaluation, the year is useful less as a stylistic benchmark and more as a set of case studies in how delivered artwork, embedded elements and trademark constraints affect practical use.
Before-and-after cases with practical file implications
The most discussed 2016 redesign was the ride-sharing company that replaced a stylized letter with an abstract geometric shape. The before asset was a clearly constructed symbol with strong contrast; the after asset used a more uniform geometric construction. In vector terms, the after file was easier to reproduce consistently because its paths relied on simpler geometry, but it also became harder for viewers to identify without the wordmark. A second notable case was the food delivery brand whose flat redesign removed gradients and dimensional effects, producing artwork that translated more predictably across print and screen.
A third example came from a broadcast network that flattened its mark and adjusted letter spacing. The before version showed embossed or beveled styling; the after version removed those raster-style effects and replaced them with flat vector shapes. That change reduced file complexity and improved scaling, but the visual weight of the mark changed enough that the after version required re-approval in many brand guidelines.
What to check in a 2016-style vector deliverable
- Confirm that the primary mark is actual vector artwork, not an embedded raster image or a vector container holding a pixel-based preview.
- Check whether gradients, shadows or transparency are live vector effects or flattened rasterizations; flattened raster content limits scaling and recoloring.
- Separate the logo artwork from the typeface. If the wordmark is converted to outlines, re-editing text becomes impossible; if it remains live type, the recipient needs the font or a valid substitution.
- Review the before-and-after files for hidden layers, clipping paths or oversized artboards that can cause placement problems when imported into other design software.
- Confirm that the delivered file matches the approved final version, because older before assets sometimes remain in the same package and are mistaken for current artwork.
Practical judgment, not just visual preference
The 2016 examples show that simplification is not automatically an improvement. A flatter or more geometric mark can be easier to deliver as compact vector art, but if the change weakens recognition or requires extensive trademark re-education, the file benefit may not justify the brand cost. Evaluators should therefore assess before-and-after examples on construction quality, scalability and delivery readiness, not on whether the new version looks more modern.
Gaps in the available evidence
The supplied material does not include the original editable working files, font licenses, trademark clearance documents or brand guideline revisions for the 2016 redesigns. That means the assessment can identify likely vector-file characteristics based on published before-and-after images, but it cannot verify path structure, layer organization or whether the final artwork was built as pure vector geometry. Those details require access to the actual deliverable files, not marketing images or screenshots.
What this means for preparing a vector logo
When preparing or receiving a redesigned logo, treat the before-and-after comparison as a diagnostic step. Ask whether the new artwork reduces unnecessary raster effects, whether the construction remains distinguishable at small sizes, and whether the delivered file separates artwork from text and brand permissions. A redesign that looks better in a presentation but arrives as a flattened or unresolved vector file creates more downstream work than the visual change removes.
The 2016 record is most useful when read for what it teaches about trade-offs: simplified vector geometry can improve reproduction while lowering distinctiveness, and the final deliverable matters as much as the public before-after reveal.