Brand Thinking
Trending Topics
Advertising Blogging Branding Design Digital Cookbook Facebook Google Information Design Innovation Legal Industry LinkedIn Marketing Mobile Mobile apps On Branding Online Advertising Online Communications On Technology Print Communication Professional Services SEO Site of the Week Site Usability Social Media Social Networking Thought Leadership Twitter Video Web Design Web DevelopmentBrand Thinking Blog
Recent Posts
-
Branding Blunders
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm
A bald man in a white muscle tee. The “swoosh.” Two golden arches. A panda bear on all fours. These images, the logos for Mr. Clean, Nike, McDonald’s and the World Wildlife Fund, respectively, are intimately connected to the brands they convey. Whether you are selling a floor cleaner or promoting a charity, your branding is crucial to marketplace success: it is how customers differentiate your business from everyone else’s. And today’s relentless competition means that many companies will at some point need to refresh their brand image.
Successful rebranding can create buzz and excitement over a new or improved product, or refresh the reputation of an existing one. But giving your brand a touch-up does not necessarily mean a complete makeover. Because consumers can become accustomed to and even devoted to brand identities, tinkering with a product’s image can have serious consequences if it is not properly thought out.
A case in point is Tropicana. For decades, the company logo featured a large orange with a straw. In 2009, parent company PepsiCo decided it needed to update Tropicana’s image with a new design sans orange/straw. Many were outraged by the sudden change in packaging, calling it generic and confusing. Consumer outcry over the change was immense and resulted in a 20% drop in sales. PepsiCo hastily reinstated the old graphic. Tropicana has consequently become a byword for branding fiasco.
Rejection of rebranding is not limited to visual associations. When General Motors sent a letter to its salespeople requesting they stop referring to cars as “Chevy” in favor of “Chevrolet,” even people who had never owned a Chevy became incensed: “Chevy” was part of the American lexicon. Elton John sang nostalgically about his “old gold Chevy” in Crocodile Rock and Don Mclean drove one to the levee in American Pie. Brand attachment can even come down to a sound: can you imagine Intel ads without their four-note coda? Or the “Law & Order” shows without their iconic clang of a cell door closing?
Where Pepsico, Chevy (sorry, Chevrolet) and others went wrong was not fully tapping consumer perspectives prior to rebranding. Asking the right questions is key. GAP, for example, did run its new logo by focus groups but it neglected to ask respondents how attached they were to the existing one. And a more savvy use of social media might have aided in a more popular redesign or even no redesign — and a savings to these companies of both face and revenue. Twitter can be especially vital in gauging consumer mood. PR Consultant Peter Shankman describes Twitter as “the ultimate focus group,” stating “I can post something and in a minute get feedback from 700 people around the world, giving me their real opinions.” (http://www.nytimes.com/)
Rebranding is often necessary – to take account of growth or a merger, to garner new audiences or to stay relevant to existing ones. Done correctly, it can win customers and increase sales. But the cautionary tales of Tropicana, Chevy and GAP indicate that rebranding must be thought through thoroughly, be test-driven with focus groups and come with a disaster management strategy. And never, ever, take your brand equity for granted.
Write a comment
