Brands have to stay relevant to their customer but is re-branding ever the answer?
Brand identities have embedded symbols that help customers to make a connection between the company and their image. These symbols hold powerful messages about brand values and meaning.
Why would companies consider re-branding?
- Their brand has been associated with something negative
Burberry’s iconic pattern became popular with cheap fake designer products and was being promoted by badly behaved youths. To remove the negative association, they re-branded themselves by adopting forward-thinking technology, promoting the sophisticated trench coat and using cool celebrity endorsers such as Kate Moss.
- Their brand image has become outdated
Old Spice aftershave was associated with older people until 2010 when they reinvented themselves with a humorous advertising campaign. The advert featured an attractive, charismatic guy asking the audience to compare themselves to him. It was popular with a younger audience and encouraged lots of online sharing.
What about when brands get it wrong?
Brands have a lot of embedded history that can be lost in re-branding. Changing logos can make brands unrecognisable and the new image must be equally memorable and unique.
Tropicana rebranded their packaging, typography and logo but the new simple design was very generic and unrecognisable. The original logo featured a straw in an orange symbolising freshness and pure orange juice. The new packaging design had a glass of orange juice making it look more artificial and low quality. Tropicana soon reverted back to the original packaging and brand identity when sales dropped considerably.
Do you think companies should re-brand in order to stay relevant or do you consider it too high a risk?