When is a rebrand not a rebrand? Sometimes, because it\u2019s literally not a rebrand, it\u2019s a brand refresh.<\/p>\n
But sometimes, to all intents and purposes it is a rebrand \u2013 people just don\u2019t want to use the r word.<\/p>\n
Several times in the past few months, we\u2019ve received emails about new visual identity projects that came accompanied with the same instructions. Some variation of \u2013 please note this is not<\/strong> a rebrand.<\/p>\n Sometimes that was the case, but sometimes it was the term itself that the studio and their client wanted to avoid.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve spoken with various designers who say they don\u2019t use the word rebrand with their clients, especially when it comes to the non-creative\/marketing stakeholders elsewhere in the business. These people\u2019s buy-in is vital, and so they need to remain unspooked.<\/p>\n Rebrand, as a word, as an idea, is seems to spook people.<\/p>\n I also spoke with someone connected to a charity that is considering a rebrand at the moment. They told me the word is snarkily thrown around by people who don\u2019t like the plans, a withering shorthand for the current leadership\u2019s wish to make changes.<\/p>\n So what the hell is going on?<\/p>\n \u201cThe word rebrand has become a bit of a loaded term,\u201d one design leader who will remain anonymous told me.<\/p>\n \u201cIt signals wholesale change and often gets linked to bigger business shifts: recruitment drives, layoffs, restructuring, investment. In today\u2019s turbulent climate, it can feel tone-deaf even when the actual intent is positive.\u201d<\/p>\n They understand why clients have become skittish about the idea of a rebrand.<\/p>\n And most of the time, they say, \u201cthe need isn\u2019t to start over. It\u2019s about helping a brand stay current and relevant, giving in-house teams the tools to tell new stories across more platforms.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s really an evolution of the design system \u2013 expanding its texture, flexibility and range \u2013 rather than a total reset. Framing it that way allows the work to move more smoothly through a business without sparking alarm.\u201d<\/p>\n But how did rebrand become such a controversial word? According to Google\u2019s search term history tool, it barely registered up until the start of 2023.<\/p>\n And it seems to have remained a fairly niche design and marketing industry term really until autumn last year, when it suddenly spiked. Rebrands, it seems, entered the mainstream chat.<\/p>\n Oh, autumn last year, lest you have forgotten, was Jaguar<\/a>.<\/p>\n The idea that the Jaguar furore fundamentally rewired how we think about these seven simple letters is backed up by the related queries Google provides.<\/p>\n The word Jaguar appears time and again, way ahead of the few other brands that make the most-searched list \u2013 Pepsi, Facebook and Amazon, among others.<\/p>\n \u201cRebrand, as a word, as an idea, is seems to spook people.\u201d<\/p>\n Jaguar was one of those incredibly rare moments when graphic design crashes into the mainstream media discourse.<\/p>\n It was all over social media. It was pulled apart in radio phone-ins. Uncles hitherto baffled by what graphic design even is asked designers about it at the family Christmas do.<\/p>\n And in our culture-war age, the debate was electrified by the accusation, in some quarters, that it was a \u201cwoke rebrand\u201d \u2013 a heritage British company abandoning its stiff-upper-lip decorum for some sort of vegan, pro-trans madness. Fetch me a scotch Maureen, one of the cars is bright bloody pink!<\/p>\n This I think then fed back into the design world. Suddenly this pretty innocuous word became freighted with connotations that no client wanted to contemplate. And then came Cracker Barrel.<\/p>\n Like many Brits, I\u2019d never even heard of a Cracker Barrel a month ago. It sounds like a slightly off-colour term that a man of a certain age might use to describe a woman who wears skirts above the knee. Make it a double Maureen, Rupert\u2019s bringing that cracker barrel home for dinner!<\/p>\n (Someone in the know told me recently that Harvester is perhaps the closest equivalent we have here).<\/p>\n As with Jaguar, \u201cCracker Barrel rebrand\u201d has become shorthand for an apparent brand design disaster.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an instructive example because, as is so often the case, rebrand here becomes reduced in many conversations to \u201cnew logo.\u201d Those before and after images of the Cracker Barrel logo snaked across my social feeds like Japanese knotweed.<\/p>\n Stripped of any context, explanation or sense of strategy, it becomes a simple clarion call \u2013 old logo good! New logo bad!<\/p>\n Designers may love saying that \u201ca brand is not a logo\u201d \u2013 and to be fair, you do bloody love saying that \u2013 but that\u2019s a distinction lost on most people.<\/p>\n And so what happens, as the design leader explains, is the logo reveal \u201cdominates the narrative, putting undue pressure on a symbol instead of recognising that a brand is the sum of experiences.\u201d<\/p>\n It seems incredible to me that two clearly exceptional situations \u2013 Jaguar and Cracker Barrel \u2013 may have torpedoed \u201crebrand\u201d as a word people feel comfortable with.<\/p>\n But maybe it shouldn\u2019t. Rebrands only make the news when there is a backlash, and so the word easily acquires unduly negative associations.<\/p>\n But interestingly, treading more carefully when it comes to framing a brand update can also backfire.<\/p>\n Writing about the derisive reaction to Walmart\u2019s subtle brand refresh last year<\/a>, FutureBrand\u2019s managing Polly Hopkins warned, \u201cIt seems that when it comes to switching up your brand identity, no approach is without risk. You\u2019re damned if you do push the boundaries, and damned if you don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n And she pointed out that refreshes are much more common than full-on brand overhauls.<\/p>\n \u201cAs an industry we love to work on large-scale reinventions, but total rebrands are rare,\u201d she wrote. \u201cThe majority of client briefs aren\u2019t about reinvention, they are about enhancing existing equities.\u201d<\/p>\n But there are times when rebrands \u201care exactly what\u2019s needed,\u201d the anonymous design leader explains. \u201cWhen it comes from the C-suite, is rooted in business strategy, and is launched in a way that explains the why, it can be transformative.\u201d<\/p>\n Many people will disagree, but Jaguar\u2019s leadership would argue that\u2019s precisely how its new look was unveiled<\/a>.<\/p>\n But either way, the way we talk about branding seems to have changed. \u201cThe caution we\u2019re seeing now is partly the legacy of high-profile missteps, which have made leaders more wary of the word,\u201d the design leader says.<\/p>\n\u201cA loaded term\u201d<\/h5>\n
You know who again\u2026<\/h5>\n
A brand is not a logo<\/h5>\n