I, for one, am not a fan. Not a fan of this branding trend known as "blanding". So many brands these days are jumping on the "web 2.0" school of design where everything is "clean and modern" or "dynamic and exciting". These are all just buzzwords that hide what's really happening: the flattening of any uniqueness. Why? My hypothesis is globalization and the compression of profit margins. Basically, it's harder to make a buck with everyone demanding cheaper and better all the while being flanked by stakeholders demanding more and more profit. So you need to sanitize and make your product/service appeal to as many customers as possible across all sorts of strata. Socio-economic, religious, political, etc. At the very least, you're trying not to offend anyone's sensibilities.
You can see it everywhere: https://boingboing.net/2018/12/13/in...057.1562880844
For anyone with a passing interest in marketing trends and design:
"Perhaps it is unsuprising, then, that the blanding trend isn’t limited to tech. Even some of today’s most established brands have erased their identity and, in one turquoise swoop, neutered their brand. Take Peter Saville’s controversial redesign of Burberry’s wordmark. The radical use of a neutral type eliminated all decorative elements. In Burberry’s case, these details weren’t superfluous; they happened to evoke style and class and heritage and something nobody else had—something that was, for lack of a better word, Burberry. Celine, too, went minimal recently, killing its accent and adjusting the spacing of its wordmark to “enable a simplified and more balanced proportion” that is designed to read as well on Instagram as it does on the side of a building. Blanding, the suggestion seems to be, is just good business."
From the Fast Company article: https://www.fastcompany.com/90276496...also-the-worst