The simplicity of Sunlife
The new identity is cleaner and easier to reproduce, but has the pursuit of simplicity stripped the sun of its character?
There's simplifying a logo, and then there is reducing it to the shape you might have started with. Looking at Sunlife’s new identity, I think that it’s just too simple. The old sun and globe symbol has become a solid yellow circle. The rays have disappeared, the curved lines have gone, and with them, much of what made the symbol recognisably Sun Life.
It is certainly simpler. In fact, it couldn’t be much simpler. But is it as strong and as identifiable?
The Canadian financial services company has a good reason to change. The refreshed identity brings Sun Life together as Sunlife and introduces the tagline “Making life brighter”. The company says the update reflects its expansion beyond life insurance into health, wealth and asset management, with a logo optimised for a digital world.
That seems to be the default answer these days: made for digital, which, to my mind, too often translates to “we’ve removed all the character from the logo”.
A starting point needs somewhere to go
Circles, squares and triangles are the basic shapes of graphic design. When you start designing a logo, they are great places to begin because they communicate quickly and offer clear, adaptable shapes.
But I would expect the design process to develop that first sketch into something with its own character. Changing the proportions, clever use of negative space, an unexpected cut or an unusual relationship between elements can turn a familiar shape into an identifiable logo.
Here, the evolution appears to have gone backwards. A symbol with specific features has been reduced to its most generic form.
The yellow circle communicates a sun, particularly when it sits alongside the name Sunlife. That connection is easy to understand and works, but communicating “sun” and communicating “Sunlife” are different things. The challenge is making this particular sun feel like it belongs to the brand.
Simple to recognise, harder to distinguish
I’m all for simple logos: symbols that communicate through association without having to spell everything out. A yellow circle can suggest sunlight, warmth and optimism. Alongside “Making life brighter”, the logic is clear.
My concern is how little of that meaning is specific to Sunlife.
Cover the lettering, though, and what remains? Any company could start with a circle.
The simpler the shape, the greater the chance of it looking like something else or someone elses logo. What makes this particular yellow circle recognisably Sunlife?
Digital shouldn’t mean featureless
There are practical reasons to simplify a detailed logo. The old symbol contains fine lines and multiple rays that could become cluttered at small sizes. A refresh was an opportunity to improve that, but a digital brief still leaves room for character.
A distinctive silhouette or a carefully designed arrangement of a few elements can work at small sizes. The design challenge is deciding which features carry recognition and how to preserve them as the detail is removed.
To my mind, the old Sun Life logo had more detail than it needed. It also had movement, warmth and a sense of reach. The globe lines and rays gave it something to say beyond just yellow. There was room to simplify that, and I’m not sure it needed to be completely removed.
Where simplicity becomes blanding
This is where the criticism of “blanding” feels justified. An identity can become cleaner while losing the particular qualities that made it worth recognising. Sunlife’s new logo looks clean and contemporary, but I don’t find any character in the symbol itself. Its warmth comes largely from the colour, and its identity comes mainly from the name.
Of course, a logo cannot carry an entire brand. Service, communication and customer experience all shape what people associate with a business. A consistent visual system could also make the yellow circle increasingly recognisable over time.
But the logo still has a job to do within that system. It should help distinguish the organisation at a glance. If so much of that distinction depends on the accompanying wordmark and repeated exposure, I think it is fair to question whether the symbol is contributing enough.
For me, Sunlife has taken a sensible idea, a simpler, more adaptable identity much further than it needed to go.
The old logo could have evolved into something cleaner while retaining a recognisable feel of its own. Instead, the new logo leaves me looking at the most basic representation of a sun and wondering where the design development went.
The circle makes sense. I just don’t think sense, on its own, is enough.
Comments