Rebrand hate and loathing
Whenever I hear of an established company receiving a rebrand I’m filled with dread, not because of how I might react to the new identity, but because of the tide of negative comments that now seem to follow. So why are some people so quick to make such judgements.
It seems as if there are people out there that like nothing more than to bash a large, publicised rebrand. Almost instantly one is announced the negativity begins, before anyone could possibly familiarise themselves with the new image, critical comments start appearing online. Maybe the reporting of large sums of money being spent on “rebrands” has affected their perception of them – which is sad as the prices quoted are usually for far more than what’s suggested in the news. Or perhaps it’s that they hate to see things change; they form bonds with these companies; their brands are familiar and comfortable to them; then suddenly one of these companies has a new identity – how dare they! But do they take the time to consider why that company felt the need to change, has its market or consumer changed, does it now need a new image to survive. These people may have liked that company’s brand, but did they use its services or buy its products. It’s all well and good being nostalgic about a brand, but if they have stopped supporting that company, should they really be so quick to critise when it changes.
I can to some degree understand people outside of the design world airing their views so quickly, but I find it curious when fellow designers do too. I would expect them to understand the need for caution, as initial views can quickly change when the full details come to light of why the rebrand was necessary. Sure, we can question the decisions made and how successful we feel the new identity is visually but without knowing the aim, how can success be judged – especially as this can take months or years.
Hopefully I’m not sounding too critical here, of course we should all be free to express our views but at least when we do, let us try to educate with those views. Often I’ve seen comments made in response to a rebrand that serves little purpose, one in particular springs to mind, that being “BIG FAIL”. Sure, it summed up what that person thought of the rebrand, but how did they think it had failed, do they even have reasons or are they just jumping on a negativity bandwagon. And surely to know if something has failed, they need to know what its goals were.
One last point, it shouldn’t be too surprising that there appears to be far more negative comments than good, after all, we are far quicker to complain than we are to praise. So unless that changes, I should just accept that the tide of negative comments will continue.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, do you think some people are too quick to make judgements on rebrands or perhaps you believe there is no point in waiting, as first impressions are more important. And do you feel society has become negative towards rebranding or maybe you think they are judged fairly. Please share your views by adding a comment below. PG
Did you enjoy this article? If so, please Tweet or Recommend it (or both).
And most of all, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what's been discussed in this article, so please share your views by adding a comment below.
Oh yes.
Recently there has been quite a numbers of hits into this rebrand thing and to date i have came across two – the Waterstones and Claridge rebrand.
The shoutouts there are totally different. Everybody seems to favors the second one than the first one while i choose to reserve my opinions as these two are not in my knowledge of what actually they both served so far. After some simple search and find, i found that both rebranding issue are somewhat no difference at all while from the point of view of a so call ‘perfectionist’. The Waterstones rebrand has a really huge changes, it seems like it is too – changing it’s appearing personality to those whom had supported them for quite some time.
Something funny is that they all don’t like the new ‘W’ (looks like a combination of 2 u’s). Check on the site which they have already launches the new identity. Appearance wise, it shows that they are looking for flexibility than by locking themselves in the old well. Time changes, perceptions change, direction remains – i see no wrong in that. The new ‘W’ reflects a brand new personality in it and through my silly noob sense to this identity, i believe it will serve its clientèle in a more flexible way and definitely giving an energy boost to its house staff by letting them to understand the added value of their services through the increase of productivity.
It’s a bit too details to the side topic but it is for better illustrating my silly opinion to the human reactions while dealing with changes like you’ve said. People would just like to face and accept the changes according to their own perception – regardless of the value that will affecting their lives. That’s pretty normal. (i sometimes react that way too when things changes not according to my will. lol)
People know ‘too many’ things nowadays but the over-whelming informations they can reach daily in the internet. They ‘understand’ more than they actually experienced.
It’s gonna be a long line in here which i really ran out of words but just the feelings of that. In summary, i would like to borrow one statement from John C. Maxwell:-
‘People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.’
- to conclude my silly nooby thoughts about this topic.
Ciao,
Duncan
Duncan McDuncan :
You made some good points Duncan, as far as the Waterstones rebrand and their new ‘W’, it does seem from what I’ve read online that people are not liking the new identity and I can understand why, it’s quite a break from tradition and not helped by the ‘W’ being likened to a “saggy butt” amongst other things, but only time will tell how successful that move was.
I agree, we have more access to information than ever before, but without actually learning that information from experience, do we really fully understand it’s meaning. I think part of the problem can be that what we find online has been written by somebody else, so it’s their interpretation of the subject matter we’re reading, not the way we mighty have interpreted it ourselves – which is fine, as long as we remember that fact.