The short answer is no.
The longer answer is also no.
And the honest answer is that changing the logo is often the least important part of a rebrand, despite being the part that receives the most attention.

Logos have become the visible shorthand for change. They are neat, tangible, and easy to point at. Boards can approve them, teams can debate them, and audiences can react to them instantly. In contrast, the harder work of rebranding clarifying identity, direction, and value is largely invisible. It unfolds in decisions, language, and behaviour rather than on launch day. As a result, many rebrands end up being judged by what changed visually rather than what changed strategically.

What a rebrand actually is

At its core, a rebrand is not a design exercise. It is a process of realignment. It asks a business to examine who it is today, who it needs to become, and what it wants to be known for as it moves forward. When done well, it sharpens focus, informs decisions, and brings coherence to how the organisation shows up internally and externally. The logo is simply one expression of that clarity, not the source of it.

Why the logo becomes the focal point

So why does the assumption persist that a rebrand requires a new logo?

Part of it is symbolic. A new logo feels like a fresh start, a line drawn under the past. It signals movement and intent, even before anything else has changed. There is also a practical element. Most stakeholders do not live inside strategy documents or positioning frameworks. They experience brands through what they see and hear. When something needs to look different, the logo becomes the most obvious lever to pull.

None of this is unreasonable. It is just incomplete.

When changing the logo makes sense

There are, of course, situations where changing the logo makes sense. When a business has outgrown its original purpose or offering, the visual identity can become a constraint rather than an asset. Marks rooted in a previous era, category, or scale of ambition often struggle to stretch into a new future. In other cases, the logo itself may be the issue unclear, inflexible, poorly suited to digital environments, or burdened with unintended associations.

Structural change can also demand visual clarity. Mergers, acquisitions, or significant portfolio shifts often benefit from a reset that signals a genuinely new entity rather than a continuation of the old. In these circumstances, a logo change is not cosmetic. It is an act of alignment.

When it does not

However, many rebrands fall into a different category. The business has evolved rather than reinvented itself. Its core purpose remains intact, but its messaging is muddled. Its proposition lacks focus. Its culture and behaviour are inconsistent with what it claims to stand for. In these cases, changing the logo does little to address the real problem.

There is also the question of equity. Logos accumulate meaning over time. Recognition, familiarity, and trust are hard won assets, and discarding them without a compelling strategic reason is rarely wise. Boredom with the current mark, particularly when it is internal rather than market led, is not a sufficient justification. Brands do not exist to keep their leadership teams entertained.

The risk of starting with the logo

This is where many rebrands go wrong. They begin with the logo rather than ending with it. Starting there is a little like redecorating a house before deciding whether you are staying, extending, or moving altogether. The result is often superficial change, something that looks different without feeling any clearer or more confident. When the visual identity is asked to do the heavy lifting, it is usually a sign that the strategic work beneath it has not gone far enough.

Better questions to ask

A more useful starting point is not Do we need a new logo? but What is no longer true about who we are? If very little has changed, the logo is probably doing its job. If almost everything has changed, then yes, the logo may need to change too, but only once that new truth is clearly understood.

Another revealing test is to ask whether the rebrand would still work if the logo stayed exactly the same. If the answer is no, it suggests the organisation may be over relying on visual change to signal progress rather than making it tangible through clarity, consistency, and better decisions.

Rebranding is about becoming, not appearing

The most effective rebrands rarely announce themselves loudly. They are felt rather than proclaimed. The business becomes easier to understand. Communication gains confidence and intent. Choices become more coherent. Over time, the brand earns trust not because it looks different, but because it behaves with greater consistency and purpose.

Sometimes that journey includes a new logo. Sometimes it does not. And occasionally, the smartest move is to leave the logo alone and allow everything else to catch up.

Because a rebrand is not successful when people notice the logo has changed.
It is successful when they understand the business more clearly than they did before and trust it more as a result.