As the recent Gap logo fiasco shows, rebrandings can go horribly wrong. Earlier this month, the US clothing retailer announced that a new logo design was to replace its well-known 20-year-old version. Customer reaction to the three black letters and a small blue square was swift and overwhelmingly negative, sweeping rapidly across the internet.
A Facebook page, “I think the new GAP Logo Sucks”, appeared, as did a spoof Twitter account featuring the new logo tweeting about how ugly it felt. Another site offered people the opportunity to make their own logo; one of the most popular variants used a word that rhymed with Gap.
Feeling the pressure, Gap made a U-turn. Marka Hansen, head of the Gap brand in North America, said: “We’ve been listening to and watching all of the comments ... We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue-box logo, and they want it back. So we’ve made the decision to do just that.” The company, she noted, “did not go about this the right way”.
Rebrandings and renamings that repel the audience they are supposed to attract are a feature of business life; sometimes the company backtracks, while others tough it out.
Pepsi stuck with the redesign of its roundel a couple of years ago, even though it was roundly deplored, while the SciFi channel decided to rise above the rash of syphilis jokes that greeted its decision to call itself SyFy in 2009. Less fortunate in outcome was the UK Post Office group’s decision at the start of the decade to move some of its operations under the label of Consignia, which attracted hoots of derision before it eventually and quietly renamed itself Royal Mail Holdings. Similarly, Tropicana, the fruit juice brand owned by PepsiCo, redesigned its logo in early 2009 only to revert quickly to the original after it was deluged with e-mails, phone calls and letters with such comments as: “The new cartons stink.”
Other efforts attract less enmity but beg the question, why bother? Why, for instance, did AOL feel the need to insert a full stop into its new logo? Odder still was the US electronics retailer Radio Shack. Last year, it decided it wanted people to call it “The Shack”, but only as a kind of nickname, while it was still formally known as Radio Shack.
Rebrandings are also often enormously expensive. Paul Veness, director of Endpoint, a brand implementation company, says: “From our experience, the cost of [executing] a rebranding is 20 to 30 times the creative budget. It’s everything from signage to staff uniforms to the IT back end.”
While he may be right that rebranding can be a good time to introduce best practice and achieve some streamlining, this is hardly the case if the company has to change it all back again.
However, Wally Olins, chairman of Saffron Brand Consultants, says the widespread public outrage at the overhaul of the Gap logo does not mean rebranding is a bad idea, “I don’t think it goes wrong that often but, when it does go wrong, people notice it,” he says.
When they like a new logo or name, he says, they usually say nothing rather than demanding that the company backtracks. Moreover, he adds, most brands “do need to change subtly and continuously if they are not to look anachronistic. If you look at BMW, the brand is continuously evolving.” Similarly, Nike, Apple and Shell all update their logos in a way that might be considered evolutionary.
But there are times when revolution is called for. “There are often very compelling reasons to make a change,” says Rita Clifton, chairman of Interbrand. “It might be a regulatory change, part of the company might split off, it might be a merger such as Diageo [the result of combining GrandMet and Guinness] or it might be that you’re becoming more international.”
How to avoid a backlash
Customers are sensitive to changes to names and logos but companies can take some steps against a potential fallout.
● Companies should ask if they need to rebrand fully. Are there compelling reasons and does the change reflect an underlying reality? A few evolutionary tweaks might be better.
● Don’t spring a rebranding on customers. Give them time to get used to the idea and explain why you are doing it.
● Listen to people but be a leader, not a follower. Social media have become an important part of how organisations communicate with customers. But that does not mean the brand strategy should be dictated by a Facebook group.
● Sometimes you will get it wrong. It is best to be honest about this and worth remembering that, managed sensitively, the publicity around a failed rebranding can become an opportunity.
Such was the case with Aviva, which until 2009 was known as Norwich Union, Commercial Union and Hibernian, as well as Aviva, in different markets, before becoming Aviva everywhere. In its home country, the UK, this meant dropping Norwich Union, a brand with more than 200 years of history, yet there was very little fuss. “Aviva rebranded in a very charming way,” says Ms Clifton.
Amanda Mackenzie, Aviva’s group marketing director, says: “Before we did it, we really tried to understand what people wanted out of a financial services brand and to understand how important Britishness was to the brand. It was driven from the top but we talked to customers and staff throughout.”
The company announced the change a year before it formally took place. It ran TV and poster campaigns featuring celebrities known for having changed their names, such as Bruce Willis, Elle Macpherson and Ringo Starr. It also listened to people, says Ms McKenzie. “We had an e-mail from the Bishop of Norwich’s office saying: ‘I do hope you’ll keep the cathedral in the logo.’ And we reassured him that yes, we would.” Ms Mackenzie even contacted some unhappy customers directly. “Someone wrote in and said: ‘Which balding, facetious, marketing twit did this?’ I phoned him and said: ‘Hi, it’s the balding and facetious marketing twit.’”
When the company formally changed its name in June last year, it also announced it would sponsor Norwich City Football Club to reaffirm its local roots. There are no Facebook groups for people who hate the name Aviva.
Ms Clifton points out that while new “invented” names – such as Diageo, Aviva, Altria or Accenture – are tempting targets, especially when they replace venerable brands, customers do get used to them. “It’s easy to mock but after a while it starts sounding normal.”
It is worth remembering how, in 1958, Japanese consumers hated the idea of Tsushin Kogyo (Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering) changing its name but the company explained it needed something foreigners could pronounce. It based its new name on the Latin word for sound, sonus, and became Sony.
Not everything hangs on a name. Mr Olins points out that if the company is good enough, even brands that in theory should be dreadful can still work. He cites Volkswagen. “It’s a classic example of an appalling name. It’s unpronounceable and has horrible historical connotations [Hitler was one of its original supporters] but it’s a very successful brand.”
His point is echoed by Ms Clifton. “The thing that really makes brands is the substance that lies beneath. If it’s not right, then a shiny new logo will just highlight this.”
Even so, companies must manage the process carefully.
Ms Clifton counsels against springing a new name on an unsuspecting public – Aviva gave people a lot of time to get used to the idea.
It is worth remembering that customers can be very conservative. “People often hate anything new,” says Mr Olins. “Jaguar spent a lot of time listening to focus groups who told them they had a great brand, so it didn’t change. But then the same people went out and bought other brands that had changed.”
The lesson may be that brands need to lead and not follow – and sometimes this can mean having the strength to weather initial criticism. The London 2012 Olympics logo was controversial at first but people now seem to have got used to it. Indeed, some observers have said Gap made two mistakes – the first was the new logo. But the second was to cave in to the online mob, which made it look weak and indecisive.
Nevertheless, there are times when rebranders must throw in the towel. But even then, if handled well, disaster can be avoided.
In 1998, Kellogg’s changed its UK breakfast cereal Coco Pops to Choco Krispies. It turned out that it had underestimated the UK public’s love of the name Coco Pops, including a catchy advertising jingle. But instead of quietly reintroducing Coco Pops, it managed to turn the outcry into a successful publicity campaign by setting up a phone vote line referendum for consumers. This attracted a great deal of media attention, culminating in the triumphant return of the original brand.
Recent Comments