Simplicity or uniqueness in a logo?

[fevolk]

Can we exchange thoughts on the question that's bothering me? What is more important for a logo - to be simple and clear or to be unique and complex? After all, many well-known brands use concise shapes that are easy to remember, but there are also examples of complex logos with many details that convey deep meaning. Where is the balance between minimalism and expressiveness? Can we say that simple logos are always better?

[haskinerin2]

In most cases, simple logos work better because they are easy to remember and recognize even in a small size. However, this does not mean that the logo should be primitive. The key is to find a balance between brevity and meaning. If the logo is too complex, it is more difficult to reproduce, and it can lose clarity in different formats. If we talk about uniqueness, it is important not so much the clutter of details, but the originality of the idea. For example, even the most minimalistic logo can be unique if it has a concept that reflects the essence of the brand. In addition, it is worth considering how the logo relates to the name of the company. At this stage of work it is important to choose a company name correctly, so that the logo organically complemented it and caused the right associations.

[kimberlyto65]

I think both options have the right to exist, and everything depends on the context. For example, if a brand is aimed at the mass market, minimalism can be an advantage. And if it is a premium or creative brand, a complex logo can emphasize its individuality.