Tree Hut’s New Logo: What to Compare With the Previous Design

The short answer

If you are looking into the new Tree Hut logo, you are looking at the brand mark of Tree Hut, the body care brand best known for its shea sugar scrubs. The most useful way to judge the update is a side-by-side comparison of the current mark and the one it replaced. Compare lettering, any symbol or emblem, spacing, color, and how each version holds up at small sizes and in single-color use.

One limit applies to everything below. No dated brand announcement, designer credit or official statement of intent was available for this guide. So it does not say when the change happened, who designed it or why the brand made it. It does not describe either version's exact details as fact, either. What it gives you is a reliable framework for making the comparison yourself and a clear list of what to verify first.

Pin down which logo you are actually looking at

Before comparing anything, define the scope. A brand mark is not the same thing as packaging. Tree Hut products have long relied on colorful, fragrance-specific labels, so a jar that looks different from an older one may reflect a packaging or label refresh rather than a change to the logo itself. Keep these questions separate:

• Is the change in the wordmark (the styled brand name), in a symbol or emblem, or in the arrangement of the two?
• Is it a new primary logo, or a secondary version made for a specific use, such as a compact mark for social media avatars?
• Is it the corporate brand logo, or a logo for a specific product line, collection or campaign?
• Is the difference you noticed in the logo itself, or only in surrounding packaging elements such as background color, label shape or product naming?

What is documented about the redesign, and what is not

A redesign history should rest on attributable records. These include a brand press release, a design agency's case study, a trademark filing or dated packaging photographed in a known context. None of these were available for this guide. As a result, the following points remain open:

• The date the new logo was introduced, and whether it was rolled out at once or gradually across products and channels.
• The designer or agency responsible, if any outside firm was involved.
• The brand's stated reasons for the change, such as modernization, legibility, digital use or a repositioning of the product range.
• Whether the previous logo was itself one in a longer sequence of versions.

Until those points are confirmed, treat any explanation of what a new shape or color "means" as editorial interpretation, not brand intent. A rounder letterform may read as friendlier, and a simplified mark may read as more modern. Those are observations about effect. Nobody can say they were the reason for the change without the brand or designer saying so.

Set up a fair comparison

Visual judgments are only meaningful when both versions are viewed under the same conditions. Mismatched specimens are the most common source of misleading redesign comparisons. A crisp official file set against a blurry photo of an old jar will make almost any new logo look better.

• Use the best available specimen of each version, preferably official artwork rather than photographs of products.
• Scale both to the same height, measured by the main lettering, not the overall bounding box. This keeps differences in proportion visible.
• View both on the same background: first plain white, then a mid-tone, then a dark tone.
• Check each version in full color and in a single solid color, because single-color use exposes structural differences that color can hide.
• Repeat the comparison at a small size, roughly the scale of a browser tab icon or a social media profile image, and at a large size.

The criteria that matter

Criterion | What to look for in each version | Why it matters

Typography | Serif or sans serif letters, stroke contrast, letter width, custom versus off-the-shelf letterforms, capitalization | Sets much of the brand's tone and determines legibility at small sizes

Geometry | Curves versus straight edges, rounded versus sharp corners, how a symbol is built from basic shapes | Simpler, more consistent geometry usually reproduces more cleanly

Spacing | Kerning (the space between specific letter pairs), overall letter spacing, the gap between symbol and wordmark | Uneven or tight spacing tends to clog at small sizes

Color | Number of colors, whether the logo depends on a specific color to read, contrast against light and dark backgrounds | Fewer dependencies make a logo easier to apply across packaging, print and screens

Scalability | Fine details, thin strokes, small counters (the enclosed spaces inside letters such as e and a) | Fine detail can vanish or blur when the logo is reduced

Lockups | Whether horizontal, stacked and symbol-only versions exist, and how consistent they are | A system of versions makes the logo easier to fit into different layouts

Asset editability | Whether the file contains clean vector paths, live text or outlined text, and sensible layers | Determines how easily the logo can be resized, recolored or adapted

Weighing the tradeoffs

Brand redesigns often move toward simpler lettering, fewer colors and less fine detail. That direction tends to help digital and small-size use, but it can cost some of the character that made an older mark distinctive. Whether Tree Hut's update follows that pattern is something to establish through your own side-by-side check rather than assume.

Without testing, claims about performance remain untested in either direction. Neither "more legible" nor "less recognizable" is established. A small-size readability check, a single-color check and, if the decision matters, feedback from a few people unfamiliar with the brand will tell you more than general impressions.

Choosing which version to use

Which version you should use depends on your purpose:

• Writing about the brand or reviewing a current product: use the current logo, once you have confirmed it is the version the brand now uses.
• Documenting a timeline or a product from a particular period: use the logo that was in use at that time, and label it with a date only if you can source one.
• Design analysis: use both versions, prepared under the matching conditions described above.
• Any commercial or promotional use: get permission and current brand guidelines from the brand owner first.

A note on vector files and permission to use them

If you are working with logo files rather than images, do not assume a file is a true vector because of its name or extension. An SVG, EPS, AI or PDF file can contain an embedded bitmap instead of paths. Open it in a vector editor and look at the outline view or individual anchor points. Also check whether text has been converted to outlines. You can only judge the geometry once you have confirmed the paths are real.

A logo being easy to find online does not mean you may reuse it. Tree Hut's marks belong to the brand owner, and editorial reference, commercial use and modification are all governed by trademark and copyright rules. Brand-supplied media kits or written permission are the reliable basis for reuse.

What to verify next

To turn this comparison into a confident conclusion, gather four things:

• Official artwork of both versions, from the brand or a media kit.
• A dated source for when the new logo appeared.
• Any statement from the brand or its designers about the reasons for the change.
• Your own matched side-by-side test at large size, small size and in single color.

With those in hand, you can describe what changed, when, and how well the new mark performs.