Barclaycard just unveiled their new corporate identity.

Yep, another Death Star.

I leapt to these comparisons right away (as did, it appears, the Creative Review). I mean, c’mon, do we need more of the same? We get it. You’re global companies. You’re bright and forward-thinking. You connect people. Blah blah blah. How much did this lazy, 5-minute bullshit cost you, again? I feel for talented graphic designers, having to watch these shiny, multinational clichés being mechanically squeezed out.

That said, it’s easy to criticise and perhaps I ought to relax. As some of the Creative Review comments accurately point out, it’s unfair to denounce logo design without context. The main sticking point is that identities aren’t solely aesthetic. The brand is what counts – and that goes beyond graphical elements (logo, colours, typography) into marketing, advertising, customer service and, of course, user experience. What does the company want us to think about them? This is a much deeper and more complex thing than whether we like a graphical device.

As an example, I’m coming to the end of my first big Clearleft project, a travel startup, in which part of our brief was to create the logo and overall brand identity. Obviously we produced several logo candidates, one of which was, although incomplete, potentially truly beautiful – exquisite typography, wonderful balance. It also completely missed the mark. In the end, we’ve chosen a logo that lacks the “beauty in the eye of the designer” but is far more in tune with the stance and ethos of the company in question.

I don’t know Barclaycard’s intended brand message, nor do I know their business objectives, so perhaps this is utterly in keeping with both. Or perhaps it’s just another sixth-form metaphor watered down further by design by committee. You decide.