Simon, it seems your approach is loaded with contrarianism and that you are attempting to tik while the mainstream appears to tak. Understandable to a degree but unconvincing and unsustainable in the long-term.

Advances in digital experience technology may enable short-term gains by employing a generic branding or 'non-design' approach but this too should prove not to be enough. Brands will always require limited sets of ideas that deliver richly in all areas, including logos. However, as I've been writing, logos are better handled as brandmarks as part of an overall 'brand mark'-led approach. An approach couched in a brand-oriented language that is without jargon but treats specific terms in ways capable of directing all brands purposefully.

It goes without saying that brands are 'worlds'. These 'worlds' often require a single symbol of the key brand idea, be that symbol a name, brandline, custom-designed wordmark, graphic or icon. This is unlikely to ever change. All purposeful identities require branding to be uniquely articulated. Or else, why bother?

Generic branding is only sometimes excusable when the underlying technology or 'brand' behaviour cannot be easily imitated, when the 'technique' is the brand idea (cue Google). As we know, a unique position based on technology alone doesn't last long. This is why we need distinctive brand ideas manifested distinctively in all the marks of a brand.

Your statement about truth in your profile is more interesting, although on the surface this will appear as yet another attention grabbing trick to the initiated. It is not difficult to take the higher ground when others aren't aware that all things fail when pursued, including all notions of truth but particularly apparent truths in a highly subjective area such as brand identity design. Show us a substantially different brand-handling methodology as opposed to manoeuvring to appear to be offering something different.

Digital is great, but also not enough.