Nobody I know in the food industry says, “Are you going to The World’s 50 Best Restaurants this year?” We say, “Are you going to the 50?” In Spanish, it is even simpler: ¿Vas a los 50?
So, when The World’s 50 Best announced recently that it was becoming The 50, my first thought was that perhaps this was less a name change than the formal adoption of a name the industry had already given them. And from a branding perspective, I find that particularly interesting. Brands spend enormous amounts of money trying to become part of the vocabulary of their consumers; they shorten names, invent acronyms and try to create nicknames that, more often than not, nobody actually uses. The best ones happen organically. People simplify a name because the brand has become familiar enough that they no longer need the entire explanation. After more than two decades, The World’s 50 Best had reached that point.
The original list launched in 2002 as The World’s 50 Best Restaurants. Since then, the organization has expanded beyond restaurants into bars, hotels, vineyards, Discovery, and editorial content. Under the new architecture, The 50 becomes the Masterbrand, while individual properties retain more descriptive names, such as The 50 Best Bars. In that context, simplifying the name makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes a brand earns the right to say less
The original list launched in 2002 as The World’s 50 Best Restaurants. Since then, the organization has expanded beyond restaurants into bars, hotels, vineyards, Discovery and editorial content. Under the new architecture, The 50 becomes the masterbrand, while individual properties retain more descriptive names, such as The 50 Best Bars. In that context, simplifying the name makes sense.
One criticism I've read since the announcement is that The 50 doesn't really mean anything. I understand the argument, The World’s 50 Best Restaurants was an incredibly descriptive name, you knew exactly what you were getting. The 50, without any previous knowledge of the organization, tells you very little. But brands don't exist without context. At some point, established brands earn the right to stop explaining themselves, and more importantly, in this case, the audience was already doing it for them.
Calling it The 50 recognizes that brand equity instead of trying to invent something completely new. There is something confident about accepting the nickname your own community has already created for you. It also creates a much better umbrella for what the organization has become. Restaurants might have been where the story started, but The 50 today operates across a much broader hospitality ecosystem. The organization itself describes the new identity as an opportunity for more year-round storytelling and to extend its role beyond rankings. That, to me, is one of the most important jobs of a rebrand. It shouldn't simply represent what a company is today, it should create space for what it might want to become tomorrow.
Then there is the gemstone
When I first saw the new identity, I must admit I did not immediately love the gemstone. I was not completely convinced by it, although I could already see that it might grow on me.
The symbol is built from 50 individual pieces, with each facet representing a different perspective, personality and story. Conceptually, it makes sense. But perhaps the more interesting question is not whether I personally like the gemstone today. It is what the brand can do with it tomorrow.
Transforming the zero in “50” into a recognizable graphic element gives the brand an asset that can potentially live independently from its name. It can move, become dimensional and appear on a stage, an award, merchandise, social content or an event installation. Its facets can contain photography, destinations, restaurants and individual stories. That flexibility matters more to me than whether the logo looks good sitting by itself on a white page.
The typography follows a similar philosophy. The identity is extremely minimal, using a visual language increasingly familiar in contemporary luxury: restrained typography, generous space and the confidence to communicate less. There is a danger with this approach. Simplification can become generic, particularly when everyone appears to be simplifying at the same time.
But The 50 has an advantage: the number 50 is already a strong verbal and visual asset. Pairing a minimal identity with a distinctive zero gives the system something it can potentially own.
Beyond the people who already know “the 50”
This might be where I see the greatest opportunity in the rebrand. For many of us working in food and hospitality, The 50 needs very little introduction. We understand what the lists mean, know many of the chefs involved and probably have opinions about who should, or shouldn't, be on them. But the potential audience is much bigger than the industry. Someone planning a trip to Mexico City may discover The 50 because they're looking for somewhere to eat. Someone else might encounter it while searching for a bar in Singapore or a hotel in Paris. Another person might see a piece of content about a chef on Instagram without caring very much about who finished number 7 or number 63.
The new brand gives The 50 a simpler way to speak to all of them. A shorter name, clearer architecture and more adaptable visual system can make it easier to create content, partnerships and experiences that don't always have to feel like extensions of an awards ceremony. That's important because the opportunity for The 50 may increasingly exist between the rankings, not only when they're announced.
The organization has described the new brand as a platform for year-round storytelling and for extending its impact beyond the rankings themselves. From a branding perspective, the new identity seems much better equipped to do exactly that. It can potentially be more playful when needed, more premium when required, more editorial in content and more accessible when speaking directly to consumers. In other words, it can behave more like a brand and less like the visual identity of a ranking.
What happened to “Best”?
Of course, there is an elephant in the room. They removed the word Best from the masterbrand. Some of the commentary around the launch has interpreted this as The 50 distancing itself from the claim that its rankings actually identify the world's “best,” a debate that has surrounded restaurant rankings for years. I'm not sure I see it that way. For one thing, “Best” hasn't disappeared from the individual rankings. The portfolio still includes names such as The 50 Best Bars, and the ranking methodologies remain in place.
To me, removing “Best” from the masterbrand is more interesting as a branding decision. Best describes a ranking. The 50 can describe an organization. That distinction matters if the ambition is to build a larger hospitality platform around content, community, events, discovery and partnerships rather than simply produce lists.
A rebrand is only the beginning
I've worked around branding long enough to know that judging a new identity the first few weeks it launches is usually unfair. We compare something completely new with something we've seen hundreds of times. Familiarity has enormous power. Sometimes the new identity gets better with use. Ask me again about the gemstone in six months.
What interests me more today is the thinking behind the change. The 50 has taken a name the industry was already using, simplified an increasingly complex portfolio under it, and created a visual system capable of moving beyond the relatively narrow world of rankings into something broader. There are risks. The name is unquestionably less descriptive. The minimalist aesthetic will need strong applications to avoid becoming generic. And the gemstone will need to become recognizable enough to justify the prominent role it has been given.
But after more than twenty years, The 50 doesn't really need to explain that it makes lists anymore. The more interesting question is what else it can become, and perhaps that is what I like most about the rebrand: by making the brand considerably simpler, The 50 has made its possibilities considerably bigger. I think this length feels better. It still reads as a proper point-of-view article, but the central argument comes through faster. I also think the sections on the gemstone and reaching a broader audience now carry more weight because there is less material competing with them.