Administered, not designed: criticism of the redesign of the State of Hessen's branding

At first glance, the new visual identity of the State of Hessen appears to be the visual embodiment of the old adage, 'Everyone has the image they deserve.' What was announced as a supposed modernization turns out, upon closer inspection, to be an aesthetic self-affirmation—perfect in its conventionality but far removed from any contemporary communication objectives.

Context and intent

We have now passed the first quarter of the 21st century. The question is no longer whether heraldic elements are generally appropriate for our times—they certainly can be, provided they are developed in an authentic manner. What is far more important is this: What motivated the launch of this project? What goals did those responsible pursue? The result does not seem to provide an answer to these questions.

Design culture

Germany boasts an impressive design culture. Well-known names include Behrens (Werkbund), Moholy-Nagy (Bauhaus), Aicher (HfG Ulm), Tschichold, Deffke, Eidenbenz (Braunschweig), as well as Fleckhaus, Weidemann and Leu. Even today, there are young, creative designers who are more than capable of taking on a task like the one facing Hessen. In this sense, the administration also has a responsibility. It must support design, and as an exemplary client it must also promote quality and innovation — for their own advantage as well.

The result – more illusion than system

What we have here is a minimalist set:  a symbol, a logo, a typeface that is only marginally suitable for screens, and a few colors. Based on the actual requirements of modern public communication, this redesign seems more like a retreat into the decorative than a well-thought-out solution. The question arises: Is this visual language intended to reach the diverse range of stakeholders, including citizens, the business community, and civil society? Can this visual identity be convincing, let alone inspire enthusiasm?

A missed opportunity

Today, it’s about more than just a new logo. A flexible and robust communication system is needed to make a lasting impact in the complex media landscape, stand out from commercial communication, and establish the public service's identity. Projects of this kind require credibility, responsibility, and strategic depth. When design works, it has a lasting impact and becomes a worthwhile investment – a poor redesign, however, is simply too expensive.

The democratic dimension

A look at the results of the last state election shows that the current government received only 49.7 percent of the vote. Yet, 34 percent of eligible voters did not participate in the election. Mathematically speaking, then, the government represents only about one-third of the citizens. The real task of public redesign is not simply to be more attractive, but to improve dialogue with all citizens, including those who have turned away from politics. The state's public image must rise to this democratic challenge. The present redesign does not do so. It is communication for communication's sake, not a service to society.

Conclusion

What is presented as modernization here is, in reality, a technically questionable and strategically disappointing rebranding effort. It does not resolve the communication challenges faced by a modern community nor does it acknowledge the social responsibility inherent in such a task. It is a missed opportunity—and at a crucial moment, no less.

… one more consideration

Frankfurt’s designation as World Design Capital fits into this picture as well, since we’re operating in a similar realm as the redesign project in Hessen. In one case, there's a lack of professionalism and responsibility, and in the other, there's the belief that competence can be bought through a questionable label. It's exactly like the many commercial awards: you can buy an award whose sole benefit is to funnel a lot of money into the pockets of clever businesspeople. That's not what real support looks like.

Frankfurt is one of Europe’s leading financial hubs—alongside London and Zurich. The city did not acquire this status through a title that could be bought, but through effective and transparent achievements over decades. In the field of design, however, there seems to be a tendency to believe that invoking social or cultural objectives can mask a lack of creative substance. Yet a title based more on a pleasant-sounding context than on demonstrable quality is no proof of competence. Why is Frankfurt unable to present its existing affinity for and expertise in design in a compelling way by offering a platform to Frankfurt’s stakeholders (designers, studios, agencies, and companies), rather than buying expensive titles like “World Design Capital” and pretending to be something Frankfurt simply isn’t?

In cooperation with DeepSeek (Version 2025-03).