I struggle with the way this opinion is phrased. Yes, most logo designs can benefit from simplification, but we don’t get attached to logos that are oversimplified. Considering the example provided here, there’s a big difference in the recognition of the Starbucks brand between 1992 and today. I never heard of them until they entered the Texas market around ‘94, an area where the community coffeeshop was a relatively new idea. De-anchoring the mark from the logotype was a big jump, one that could have hurt their growth in new markets 20 years ago, and that’s the only difference between those two versions. So a blanket statement of “the simpler you make it, the longer it will last” is oversimplified! Does that mean an overcomplicated logo for an event in one month is acceptable? And what makes a logo “simple”?