International Paper Rebranding

International Paper Company recently celebrated its 125th anniversary with a bold rebranding effort that included replacing its six-decade-old logo with a completely new design. This decision has raised eyebrows among designers and loyal customers who question the necessity and implications of such a significant change. A logo gains strength over time, and unless there's a merger, acquisition, or significant organizational shift, it generally shouldn't be changed.

The logo of International Paper Company was designed by the legendary designer Lester Beall in 1959. It was in the form of a monogram, combining the letters "I" and "P" with a tree icon. The logo was simple, appropriate, unique, and memorable. With consistent use for more than six decades, it had become strongly established in customers’ minds. Changing this perfectly designed logo does not make sense at all.

However, in 2023, International Paper decided to change its iconic logo to mark its 125th anniversary. The new logo was designed by Addison, a New York-based branding agency. It features a combination of eight repeating abstract shapes, symbolizing the negative space between tree branches. The green color represents environmental responsibility.

We’re not here to debate the aesthetics of the new design. The real question is: Who made the decision to change the logo in the first place? Even if a client expresses a desire for a new logo, it is the duty of the design studio to challenge that impulse, unless there is a compelling and unavoidable reason for change. A logo isn't just a visual identifier; it's a symbol of heritage, trust, and brand recognition that grows stronger over time. To discard a logo with such a rich history is not just a mistake—it's an act of brand negligence.

It looks like the rebranding decision seems more like a marketing gimmick than a strategic move. It’s hard to ignore the fact that this change coincides with International Paper’s 125th anniversary, suggesting that the company is more interested in making a splash than in preserving its legacy. The focus on sustainability and innovation is certainly important, but those values could have been communicated without the need to erase the brand's history.

Moreover, the responsibility of the design agency cannot be overlooked. While they may have been tasked with executing the rebrand, it is their duty to challenge clients when they are about to make a monumental mistake. If a client insists on a change that could jeopardize brand equity, it is the agency’s responsibility to push back and provide sound reasoning against such a drastic move. In this case, it appears that Addison either failed to do so or chose to prioritize the paycheck over the integrity of the brand.