Chris Do’s Under Armour Logo Critique Misses the Whole Point of Design

Summary

---

The Angry Designer – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Chris Do’s Under Armour Logo Critique Misses the Whole Point of Design
Date: October 28, 2025
Podcast: The Angry Designer

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, the hosts dig into a recent critique from Chris Do—a well-known voice in the design industry—who called the Under Armour logo "garish" and aesthetically unappealing. The hosts break down not only Chris Do's arguments but also challenge the validity of judging design primarily by personal taste, especially when it comes to iconic logos. Using Under Armour as the focal point, the show explores the intersection of design strategy, aesthetics, and what actually makes a logo stand the test of time.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Chris Do’s Critique: Aesthetics vs. Strategy

• Chris Do opens by confessing his distaste for the Under Armour logo, deeming it "garish" and “horrific” in terms of visual appeal, despite acknowledging its strategic symbolism ([00:00-01:47]).
• He describes the logo as “two half ellipses that overlap and intersect… flipped upside down so you can see the X in it. So it’s cool to see the letter X… a U and an A overlapping.” ([00:53]).
• However, the hosts point out the contradiction in acknowledging strategic depth while dismissing the design based on personal taste.

2. The Power of Concept & Symbolism

• The logo's integration of U, A, and X (the “X factor”) is praised by both Chris and the hosts as a trifecta of conceptual wins.
• “It sounds almost as good as the FedEx arrow. And isn’t that the foundation of a strong logo?” ([01:13]).

3. Personal Taste versus Universal Principles

• The host (B) expresses frustration that personal distaste is being passed off as objective critique:
  • “But regardless, is this a design critique or is this personal taste? There is a difference.” ([01:13])
  • “Not liking a logo doesn’t make it a bad design. It just means it’s not your vibe.” ([05:17])
• Chris outlines standard logo criteria—harmony, balance, ratio, scalability, versatility, and recognizability ([03:40-04:01]).
• Host pushes back: “Under Armour checks all of those. Every single one.” ([04:01])

4. The Mood Board Test & What Makes a Logo Last

• Chris advocates “the mood board test”—placing a logo among iconic brands to see if it fits in ([05:42]).
• The hosts challenge this for Under Armour: “How do you mood board a brand that is literally built its image on grit and sweat and raw performance? Under Armour doesn’t belong next to Apple or Chanel. And that, that’s the point. It’s built by its tribe, not by looking like Nike or Adidas.” ([06:06])
• The importance of consistency and not chasing trends is highlighted as a logo’s enduring strength ([07:50], [08:28]).

5. On Trends, Fads, and Brand Authenticity

• Both agree chasing fads is detrimental; successful logos embody authenticity and endurance.
• “Your logo shouldn’t feel like it came from a fiverr job that expires next week… Under Armour logo is still catching hate for this. That mark’s been around for like 30 years and guess what? It hasn’t changed… It was bold, geometric. No bs, no fluff.” ([08:28])

6. Design Process, Research, and Value

• Chris reminds listeners: the real work in logo design is in the research, competitive analysis, and strategizing—stuff AI can’t replicate.
• “It’s not about the formal qualities, like what it looks like. It’s all the research that they do to arrive at a conclusion…” ([10:19])
• Host: “I’m still confused why he trashed a logo that clearly had strategy, simplicity, symbolism and longevity… That’s exactly what Under Armour logo is.” ([11:11])

7. Critical Thinking in Design Discourse

• The episode’s core message: Challenge design opinions, even from admired figures.
• “The biggest thing he taught me is think for yourself and question everything, even him… Because if you’re just copying opinions, you’re not a designer anymore. You’re just a fan.” ([12:40])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Chris Do:

  • “So you can love the idea so much that the aesthetics of it actually takes a second seat. This is one of those ones where… the form is just. I hate to say it, it’s like ass.” ([02:41])
  • “The job of the logo designer… is really, really important that it look good, that it follow universal principles of design about harmony, balance, ratios…” ([03:40])
  • “A logo isn’t just a random collection of marks and shapes put together by a machine… it’s all the research that they do to arrive at a conclusion…” ([10:19])

• Host (B):

  • “It sounds almost as good as the FedEx arrow. And isn’t that the foundation of a strong logo?” ([01:13])
  • “Not liking a logo doesn’t make it a bad design. It just means it’s not your vibe.” ([05:17])
  • “Under Armour doesn’t belong next to Apple or Chanel. And that, that’s the point.” ([06:06])
  • “The real question here is, is the logo actually bad or does it just not fit in with his personal taste? Because if it walks like a great logo, performs like a great logo, and builds a billion dollar brand like a great logo, maybe the problem is not in the logo, maybe it’s how we’re judging the logo.” ([08:28])
  • “The biggest thing he taught me is think for yourself and question everything, even him.” ([12:40])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–01:47: Chris Do’s initial critique of Under Armour; breakdown of logo concept
• 03:40–04:01: Essential design principles for logos
• 04:34–06:06: Host challenges whether critique is strategic or just personal taste; the mood board test
• 07:13–08:28: Case study: The F1 logo and what makes identity changes controversial
• 08:28–09:30: Trends versus endurance—why Under Armour’s consistency matters
• 10:19–11:11: The true value of professional logo design: research, strategy, confidence
• 12:40–end: Encouragement to think critically and form independent opinions

---

Tone and Style

• Language: Unapologetically candid, direct, questioning, and at times irreverent (“no-bull,” “It’s like ass,” “no bs, no fluff”).
• Approach: Focused on challenging status quo thinking, demystifying industry dogma, and advocating for independent, critical thought in design decisions.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode is a passionate, nuanced defense of Under Armour’s much-debated logo, using it as a lens to dissect deeper design principles. The hosts push back against confusing personal taste with objective critique, emphasizing that strategy, concept and longevity often trump mere aesthetic preferences. The episode serves as a rallying cry for designers to form their own opinions and remember that iconic logos aren’t designed to please every eye—they’re built to serve a unique purpose and tribe.

---

Transcript

[A]

So this is a topic that a lot of designers get really upset about because whenever there's a new logo or rebrand refresh, the Internet goes crazy. Especially designers who talk about the aesthetics of it. You know how I feel about that. But I'm actually going to talk about aesthetics on this episode. One logo that I think is totally garish for a company that knows better, that deserves better, that's, I believe, a multi billion dollar corporation is. Okay, cover yours. Under Armour.

[B]

Okay, now hold up. We're not even 20 seconds in and Chris is calling one of the most iconic sports logos garish. I gotta jump in. First of all, I love Chris. I owe a lot of my business thinking to Chris. But here's the thing. The biggest lesson I learned from Christo was to think critically, to ask better questions, to question everything. So that's what we're here to do today. We're talking about the Under Armour logo and why I disagree with almost everything that he said in this video. Let's go.

[A]

Okay, let's talk about the Under Armour logo. If you're not familiar with it, I'll do my best to describe it for those of you that are listening to this. Under Armour logo is two half ellipses that overlap and intersect and they're flipped upside down so you can see the X in it. So it's cool to see the letter X. That letter X is super sexy. So good idea there. And it's really a U and an A overlapping.

[B]

Wait, what? Mind blown. So it has a clear concept, triple symbolism UAX and alignment with the X factor of the brand. That's incredible, not horrific. It sounds like the kind of strategy that brands dream about. It sounds almost as good as the FedEx arrow. And isn't that the foundation of a strong logo? Chris just praised the thinking behind the logo and then he trashed it because he personally doesn't like it and how it looks. But regardless, this is a design critique or is this personal taste? There is a difference.

[A]

This is one of those logos where you think, okay, great idea. I can imagine being in the board of directors chief Marketing Officer, where the branding design firm presents this thing. It's like there's a U, there's an A and there's an X in it. And it's like the X factor of Under Armour. Isn't that cool? What a terrific idea. And everybody applauds and said, let's just adopt that. And this is one of those moments where the idea could be so strong, where you can approve it beyond the aesthetics for Me, the aesthetics of the this mark is horrific. Like, I don't know much about the company. I actually own some Under Armour clothing and I almost want to remove the logo. So the first thing is, does it pass the basic aesthetic test? If anything, the simpler your logo is, the easier it is to pass this test, and the more ornate or tricky or clever that you want to make it, this is where it gets really challenging for people.

[B]

Okay, does it pass the basic aesthetic test? Can it get any simpler? It's just the letter X.

[A]

So you can love the idea so much that the aesthetics of it actually takes a second seat. This is one of those ones where there's an idea of form and function. So maybe the function of it is really cool, but the form is just. I hate to say it, it's like ass. You guys, I know I'm being a bit of a design snob here, and I'm not saying that I have a better opinion or taste or aesthetic level than you, but whenever we go out in the world and we're going to wear something where the logo is very prominent and it's part of, like, the tribe that we join, it's kind of the symbol that we can rally behind. It's got to look good. And so there are companies I know nothing about. I don't know the brand story, the founder story or anything like that. And I see it and what draws me in as a visual person, as a person who's really keenly tuned towards the design, I see it and I think this is worth an investigation. And when we're thinking about it, what is the purpose of any marketing or design effort? It's to bring in new customers and to keep the existing customers really happy. So I think here, the job of the logo designer, especially when it comes to apparel, merchandising, it's really, really important that it look good, that it follow universal principles of design about harmony, balance, ratios, all those kinds of things, that it look good when it's scaled down small, that it's not overly complicated and it's very versatile. It can be used for a lot of different applications. It can be used maybe repeated as a pattern for a shirt or deconstructed for a shoe or a headphone. That's how you know that the logo is really good.

[B]

Okay, now we're listing all the rules that a good logo should follow. Harmony, balance, ratio, scale. Here's the thing. Under Armour checks all of those. Every single one. It scales, it's iconic, it works on merch, on shoes, on headphones. And hats. It's literally patterned in their underwear. I feel that maybe his feelings towards it as pathetically are blurring his opinions on all the aspects of design in this case anyway. He really doesn't like it, does he?

[A]

And sadly, if you agree or disagree with me, that's why I think the Under Armour logo is.

[B]

But are we judging logos by strategic merit here or is this just by personal taste, dressed up as, like, design critique?

[A]

So one thing when you're designing a logo is to try it on multiple applications as a mock up. Put on a uniform, put on a truck, on a plane, put it as wrapping paper or tape for a box that you're going to ship out. Try to find as many applications for as possible. And it needs to pass a few things. Number one, is it still recognizable? Is that iconic? Is it appropriately sized for its use? Some things look really good small, but when scaled up look terrible. So then sometimes you have to design a more responsive logo so it can actually have multiple configurations or slight enhancements or modifications to it. So that looks good at all sizes.

[B]

Okay, iconic. Check. Scales. Well, check. Looks badass on a hat, shoes, pair of shorts, check, check, check. So it literally nails everything. Versatility, functionality, brand awareness. But he's still throwing it under the bus. He just doesn't like how it looks. Here's the part that nobody wants to say out loud. Not liking a logo doesn't make it a bad design. It just means it's not your vibe.

[A]

And now here's one test. If you build a mood board with all the brands that you love that have withstood the test of time. So I'm thinking nothing that's like younger than 10 years old, preferably 30, 50 years old, because now, you know, it's survived a couple different shifts in design and trends. Put your logo and your mock up next to a board full of like, great brands that you love and admire. If it looks like it belongs there, you've done a great job.

[B]

Ah, yes, the mood board test. But how do you mood board a brand that is literally built its image on grit and sweat and raw performance? Under Armour doesn't belong next to Apple or Chanel. And that, that's the point. It's built by its tribe, not by looking like Nike or Adidas. Are we confusing good design with design that looks good next to Swiss brands? That's not always the same thing.

[A]

Say you have a bunch of tastemakers and you're not getting consistent feedback across the board. I think you're running the risk here. And unless you're like a really forward, bleeding edge kind of company. It's not a risk that you want to take. Ideally, when you create a logo, it begins a story that you don't want to change. It can evolve, but you don't really want to change it because changing it means all the brand equity, all the recognition that's built into it. It's gonna, you're going to have to start over.

[B]

This whole argument, it's a total double standard. What's the meaning behind the Nike logo, the Adidas logo? Nike swoosh was like 30 bucks and rushed before a deadline. Even the founder at the time said he wasn't in love with it. It didn't become iconic because of the design itself. It became iconic because Nike earned that brand.

[A]

Take for example, this was hot and controversial a while ago, the F1 logo. So the F1 logo has existed for a really long time. And then they decided, you know what, it looks really dated. We're ready to do something different. We, we want to do something modern and sleek. And then it seems like all the fans of F1, the auto automotive enthusiasts, the logo geeks and those types, they came out of the woodwork to say, this is terrible logo. But you know, five, six years later it's quiet down massively and now no one complains about it.

[B]

Okay, cool, F1 story. I love that logo. But this doesn't relate to the under armour logo. That logo hasn't changed that. Consistency is a strength, it's not a weakness.

[A]

So let's talk about trends and should you be ignoring them or embracing trends? When people use the word trend, they misuse it. What they mean is fad. And we're not quite sure when something pops on the, on the zeitgeist of pop culture that is it a fad or is it a trend? And so when you are chasing something, take a step back and ask yourself questions like, why am I doing this? Is it because it just seems like what everybody's doing? And if that's the case, I would just avoid that because the worst thing that you want to do is to do what everyone is doing. The whole point of identity is to be unique and to be different and to be slightly weird if anything else. So following the trends is not a great way to do that.

[B]

I actually completely agree here. Good design doesn't chase trends or fads. They're cheap, they're temporary. Your logo shouldn't feel like it came from a fiverr job that expires next week, which is why it blows my Mind that Under Armour logo is still catching hate for this. That mark's been around for like 30 years and guess what? It hasn't changed. Not a refresh, not simplification, not gradient, nothing. You know why? Because it doesn't need to. It was never chasing what was hot at the time. It was built to last. It was bold, geometric. No bs, no fluff. Meanwhile, we're watching companies like Pepsi and crackerjack and even F1 go through all these identity crisis while Under Armour just stayed in the gym lifting heavy weights. So the real question here is, is the logo actually bad or does it just not fit in with his personal taste? Because if it walks like a great logo, performs like a great logo, and builds a billion dollar brand like a great logo, maybe the problem is in the logo, maybe it's how we're judging the logo.

[A]

Now here's something that I've learned through years of design and just studying design. The people have figured out design. The masters of design who were in Switzerland and Germany many, many years ago, decades ago, have figured out what works. They follow certain golden principles of ratios, harmonies, certain geometric shapes that just work. And when you look back at these marks that were created so many years ago, they withstand the test of time. And so everybody's trying to reinvent the rules. I don't think you need to reinvent them. You just have to find the right application for what it is that you're doing. So rather than be so weird and unique in breaking all the rules, be weird and unique in your application of the rules. If you're thinking about using ChatGPT or one of these generative AI engines to make your logo, I would ask you to reconsider what you're getting. A logo isn't just a random collection of marks and shapes put together by a machine. And although aesthetically it can look very pleasing, you're not just buying the mark. Because at the end of the day, if you showed me an award winning logo and asked any capable designer, can you draw this logo? Of course they can draw you the logo. That's not the point. The reason why companies pay creatives on a lot of money, we're talking about tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, is because they're making a big decision and they want to do their due diligence. So large agencies and design firms will go and do research, they'll do competitive analysis, they'll go into the history of your company, they're going to look at things that unless you can prompt an engine to do this, it's not going to happen. So it's not about the formal qualities, like what it looks like. It's all the research that they do to arrive at a conclusion so that you can feel confident that it's worthwhile for you to now spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars replicating this logo across multiple touch points.

[B]

Exactly. Which is why I'm still confused why he trashed a logo that clearly had strategy, simplicity, symbolism and longevity. He said a logo isn't just a collection of shapes, it's about what it looks like. It's about what the research, the process behind it, the strategy behind it. That's exactly what Under Armour logo is. We already established that. It's simple and it's scalable and it's symbolic. But more importantly, it was strategically built. Under Armour didn't roll this out from a Fiverr post. This came from a legit branding process. It combines a U and an A, and whether it's intentional or not, it creates that awesome X, the symbol for X factor, which aligns with performance Edge, Elite mindset. That's not decoration, people. That's some pretty deep meaning. Even Chris is saying that's what matters most. The strategy, the research, the confidence to invest money in rolling it out across the touch point. So what are we even debating about anymore? You can't just slam a logo for how it looks and then admit that logos are more than about how they look. You either judge it by design principles, in which case Under Armour kills it, or you judge it by personal taste. And that's just opinion. And good design isn't defined by one's personal taste.

[A]

All right, I hope you enjoyed this format, but I'm really, honestly looking for your genuine feedback. Let me know. And if you've enjoyed this, please share it with someone who needs to listen to this.

[B]

All right, look, I got nothing but respect for Christo. He's done a lot for the design community. I've even built big parts of my business because of what I've learned from Chris over the past 10 years. But the biggest thing he taught me is think for yourself and question everything, even him. This isn't about being right or wrong. This is about thinking critically, not blindly agreeing with what's trending on social. And when you actually think about it, when you break it all down, the Under Armour logo holds up strategically, visually, functionally. This thing's built like a tank and it's still winning. So don't be afraid to disagree, because that's not disrespectful. That's growth, people. Because if you're just copying opinions, you're not a designer anymore. You're just a fan. Let me know if you like this and let me know if you want to see more of this kind of stuff or if you just want to see it go all together away. On behalf of myself and Sean, stay creative and stay angry. Peace it.