First approach: An analysis of re-branding strategies

An old motto says that if it can be seen, heard or touched, then it is not branding. There is a common understanding on this matter among professional brand specialists. However in the eyes of the consumer, brand perceptions may take years to manifest, hence the first approach that the audience would have with a rebranding effort, is generally communicated through the tangible elements which — on the other hand — brand specialists actually exclude as part of “the brand”.

Having lived and worked in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia, and having been involved in branding since my early 20s, I realised that the re-branding exercise of any entity, can be divided into two main strategies: (1) Big and Sudden, and (2) Slow and Broad.

Both have their pros and cons, and this article is going to explain when to embrace one or the other.

Big and Sudden

This approach requires an initial internal work on getting everyone to agree that re-branding is required. With the Big and Sudden approach, every department of the organisation needs to be in line with the new branding values and perceptions. The biggest enemy of this strategy could be the internal old bad habits that are usually hard to die. Longeve organisations tend to be resistant to change management, hence it is hard to course correct with those who were happy with the past.

The second hurdle is the massive amount of work needed to “shut down” all the previous communication flows and replace them with the new channels. This would require everyone in the organisation to unlearn and relearn many of the knowledge and skills they acquired over the years. Also, due to the sudden element of change, a large amount of money must be allocated to contingency, for the rainy days, if and when the Big and Sudden approach fails to attract the expected outcomes.

Especially at the beginning, Big and Sudden, requires intense capital investment on “erasing” the memory of the consumers. In the movie “Men in Black”, the agents had a special sci-fi device that when flashed to anyone’s eyes, would have deleted old memories and replaced it with new ones. Unfortunately in real business, such a device is called “cash”.

One of the good things about being Big and Sudden, could be that there is no need for fine tuning. The rebranding effort is concentrated on the months prior to the launch, hence once ready with the new deliverables, everyone can go back to focus on business as usual. Also, when the rebranding visual elements are a clear improvement compared to the old brand identity, consumers would quickly and clearly separate the old perception from the positive change.

Big and Sudden brand repositioning exercises are usually associated with a good corporate culture, where management understands and listens to the consumers.

There are however cases when Big and Sudden turned out to be a fiasco. The apparel retail company Gap is one of the most notorious cases. They wanted to take their 3 thin letters out of the blue box, so they replaced the character with a bold font and positioned the box on a side, behind the letter P. The customers did not like neither the design, nor the sudden change, forcing the company to quickly u-turn back to the previous logo and apologise with the loyal customers. Needless to say, the amount of investment burnt in such type of fiascos can easily reach the 7 digits.

Slow and Broad

This is a more conservative approach to rebranding. It gives time for everyone to adapt and accept the new brand. From communication perspective it creates some sort of confusion, of course, as the new brand is slowly but steadily integrated. Hence, in terms of deliverables, it implies the coexistence of two messages being delivered at the same time.

Although this allows branding specialists to convey the reasoning over a prolonged period of time, it might also cause loss of focus to the team that is implementing such a long term messaging blend. So, despite the fact that this strategy is meant to give time for everyone to adjust, it sometimes create confusion both in the customers and stakeholders.

One of the most positive aspects of slow and broad rebranding is that it offers margin for testing, assessing, reviewing and correcting. This is a healthy exercise that allows parties involved to control the costs and deliver to the audience a brand that is well thought and broadly agreed on.

Microsoft has experimented with both methods and mastered the Slow and Broad. While users were still seeing every day the old logo in their operating system, they were slowly exposed to the new logo that would have waited for them in the new version of the software, providing plenty of time for each client to adapt to the new visual.

Even when Microsoft attempted a Big and Sudden rebranding strategy, with the “boxy” interface of the new operating system, they offered users the option to stick to the old version, until they were ready to move on, easing the rebranding for everyone involved in the process.