The Power of Consistency: Unveiling the Perils of Rebranding

The need for rebranding can come up in two ways, or maybe more. One, you look at your business and get a sense of dissonance between what your promise is on one hand and what your strategies are on the other. Two, your brand identity visuals may just seem out of place after some time. You consider some options to reenergize the brand and ultimately end up with rebranding as the only way out.  Before you call up your branding and marketing personnel to brainstorm and come back to you with ideas to rebrand, please pause and think.

It is true that in the fast-paced world of business, rebranding has become a common practice, enticing companies with the promise of rejuvenation and renewed success. However, beneath the glossy surface lies a hidden truth: the power of consistency that should not be underestimated. Below, we delve into the potential drawbacks of rebranding, examining real-world examples that shed light on the perils that lurk behind the allure of a fresh start.

What You Have: Building Brand Recognition and Loyalty. Brand recognition stands as the cornerstone of success in today’s competitive market. Without it, you are competing on price only. Consistency plays a pivotal role in establishing an easy-to-recognize brand, allowing consumers to form deep-rooted associations. Take Coca-Cola, for instance. The iconic red logo with the cursive font type has remained virtually untouched for more than 130 years. This unwavering consistency has cultivated an unparalleled level of customer loyalty, making Coca-Cola a global household name. As of 2022 Coca-Cola is the world’s most valuable brand in the non-alcoholic drinks sector at USD 35.4 billion.

What it Takes: Time and Cost Investment. Rebranding is no small endeavor—it demands substantial investments of time, resources, and finances. Pepsi, Coca Cola’s competitor, has unveiled a new logo and visual identity system 14 years after their last rebrand. The last rebrand in 2022 cost them USD 1 million in just designing the logo leave alone application across different touchpoints. Research indicates that rebranding can cost companies millions of dollars, not to mention the countless hours spent on market research, strategy development, and implementation. Even with these considerable investments, the risks associated with rebranding can be staggering. Gap Inc., a retail giant, learned this the hard way when their attempted rebrand in 2010 met with severe backlash from consumers. The company was forced to backtrack swiftly and revert to their original logo, costing them an estimated $100 million in the process.

What is at Stake: Reputation and Trust. In an era dominated by skepticism and fleeting attention spans, trust and credibility are invaluable assets. A sudden rebrand can shatter the trust painstakingly built over years, leaving customers confused and skeptical. Consider the case of British Petroleum (BP), which, to reposition itself as an environmentally conscious brand, unveiled a new green logo in 2000. Despite the cosmetic changes, BP’s core operations remained the same, and the move was met with widespread criticism for what was seen as a deceptive attempt to mask their environmental track record. BP’s rebranding efforts only served to tarnish their reputation further and erode public trust.

What to Watch Out For: Navigating Competitive Landscapes. In certain markets, the brand is the difference between being in business and closing shop. If not approached strategically, rebranding can result in the loss of competitive advantage. RadioShack, a once-prominent electronics retailer, serves as a stark example.

In 2009, the company opted for a rebranding effort to modernize its image and appeal to a younger demographic. However, the attempt fell flat, and RadioShack struggled to regain its relevance in an increasingly crowded market. The company’s lack of clarity and brand differentiation ultimately led to its demise, with RadioShack filing for bankruptcy in 2017. A brand’s positioning in the market is vital for its survival.

What are the Options? Evolution Versus Rebranding. It may seem like the only option is to rebrand. There are alternatives however that can help mitigate the risks and costs associated with refreshing your brand while maintaining consistency. Consider evolving your brand.

The process of evolution, characterized by incremental changes, allows brands to adapt to evolving consumer preferences while preserving their core identity.

Starbucks, for example, has masterfully employed this strategy. Over the years, the coffee giant has made subtle adjustments to its logo and store design, embracing modern aesthetics while ensuring that the essence of the brand—warmth, community, and exceptional coffee—remains intact. This evolutionary approach has solidified Starbucks’ position as a leader in the industry while avoiding the potential pitfalls of rebranding.

You may need to overhaul everything. Especially if the overall strategy for your business or organization do not tie together at all. Sometimes a rebrand leads to new, unexplored markets that would never be accessible. However, the aim of this article was to help you take everything into account before you go ahead.  While rebranding may appear enticing on the surface, consider the power of consistency and carefully evaluate the potential risks involved. Maybe all you need to change is make your colours brighter.

Article by Charles Bodo, Branding and Design Specialist

Would you like to share an article? Write to us at sbscommunication@strathmore.edu