Performing an effective company rebranding has become an art form. Rebranding can be equated to dyeing your hair. If you do it well, you can make yourself more attractive to certain tastes. If you aren’t careful, however, you may end up with an unsightly image and a lot of wasted money.
In the age of company handles, Twitter profiles, and personalities associated with certain fonts, developing an effective branding strategy has become a complex art form. People who have never used your product or service can still form an opinion about who you are based off of your trademarks, promotional materials and messages. Knowing these few basic concepts can help you better expect what’s to come from your decision to change.
Pro #1: Your company can adapt to the changing times.
Con #1: Some of your longtime followers may feel alienated.
Cultural values and attitudes change throughout time. In 1950’s America, women did most, if not all, of the shopping. As a result, many ads focused on women’s roles during that time. It was common – even expected – for retailers of cleaning products, kitchen appliances, clothing and food to sell their products as tools women could use to more easily do household chores and please their husbands.
Now, gender roles are much more fluid. Nobody blinks an eye when women work outside the home, men cook dinner, or girls play contact sports. Van Heusen underwent major rebranding in the 60’s and 70’s to adapt to the changing culture, and they’re still a successful brand today because of it. They got rid of their ads depicting women in “a man’s world” and replaced them with ones depicting women working in an office or having fun with friends. Their recent ads for their Fall 2017 women’s collection show women drinking coffee and shelving things in an office. One tagline even describes a blouse as being “office ready and on trend.”
Even the most subtle and tasteful rebranding is bound to leave a few people feeling lost. Last year, Virginia Tech softened the corners of their sharp logo and dropped the “Invent the Future” slogan in an effort to be more inclusive to liberal arts majors who don’t necessarily “invent.” Despite their thoughtful intentions, the change provoked a strong negative reaction from students and alumni.
Surely some of these followers will move past their initial repulsion of the logo, and grow to accept the change. Once they graduate, the new class of students replacing them is likely to find nothing wrong with the change, since they never personally experienced the old logo. Only time will tell if this $1 million project will be worth the money.
Pro #2: You can expand your business into a new demographic.
Con #2: It is incredibly expensive, and it does not guarantee results.
Once you establish brand loyalty among one demographic, rebranding can help you appeal to other audiences, while still hopefully retaining the original consumers. The success story of Old Spice is a prime example of this.
Old Spice has been around since 1937. Their original branding gave the message to men that Old Spice has an attractive smell that could “spice” up their lives and leave them feeling fresh. Their campaign worked, and they enjoyed lasting success for many years.
Then, in the 1980’s, Axe was developed, and it soon began dominating the market for younger generations. Teenagers and young men began to see Old Spice as – well, old. It was something their grandfathers used, and it wasn’t edgy or exciting.
So starting in 2010, Old Spice underwent major reimaging. They began putting out humorous commercials with famous athletes. The commercials showed the athletes in an unconventional light, making music with their muscles and riding majestic white horses. The ad campaign was extremely successful, with many of the commercials becoming viral videos.
The 2008 “Response Campaign” featuring actor Isaiah Mustafa garnered over 40 million views after the first week and made them the most viewed branded YouTube channel of all time to date, and even overshadowed Obama’s inauguration speech.
The old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is true for many companies looking to change their branding. Stella Artois has had the same logo since 1366, and they’re still widely popular today. Change for the sake of change is a risky venture, and can lead to a lot of wasted money.
The most infamous rebranding mistake is probably Gap in 2010. Without warning, the clothing company dropped the bold blue block they had for decades and replaced it with a tiny blue gradient square in the corner, and changed the font and color of the name. The change was instantly met with harsh ridicule.
The logo design itself wasn’t bad. In an age where more and more companies were making safe, flat-colored logos, Gap’s new logo was a subtle way to stick out from the crowd. To maintain brand consistency throughout all their locations, however, it’s estimated that Gap had to shell out $100 million. That multi-million dollar project was still not enough to stand up to the media, and the old logo was reinstated after only six days.
Rebranding takes a lot of artistic, demographic and financial research. A new image can have dramatic effects – both positive and negative – so it’s not something to be taken lightly. Weighing the pros and cons of such a critical business decision is the first step in a long process, but with a little help from the right people, you can make your brand something that floats above the changing tides.
