19 Nov The myth of rebranding
Reading Time: 2 minutesConsider any company that’s been around for a decades or more. They will have shifted products and how they sell them. Perhaps at some point they used a different name or logo, discontinued a product, moved locations, shifted to web only. They might have changed manufacturers, been acquired by a bigger rival, hired more people or scaled back.
And value is stored in the brand from that pile of everyday actions and decisions. Add a bit. Lose a bit. Hopefully more on the add side. It’s always accumulating or eroding, which renders the whole idea of ‘rebranding’ moot. It’s a myth. Because you’re always remaking at the edges of who you are.
When people say rebranding, they’re usually describing activity related to their marketing communications and visual identity. Re-logoing, re-naming, re-campaigning, re-look and feeling.
And while those activities can contribute, value also flows from every corner of the organisation.
A boost might come from Finance streamlining processes so suppliers get paid on time. Which means supply chains keep flowing and products are on the shelf when customers click ‘add to my cart’. Value stored.
Rivers of goodwill flow from supporting a popular social cause with some added serendipity of the right product at the right time. What you care about is amplified and translates into a torrent, filling coffers that let you make even more donations. More value stored.
Conversely, marketing over-promises a feature. Customer service gets flooded with complaints from unhappy people. Who tell their friends in person and on social media. Demand falls. Value erodes.
The brand is always in flux. Which is good news. Because when people’s activity across an organisation contributes, everyone is involved and shares responsibility. Their choices (hopefully) adding value to the mix.
It’s an idea that also simplifies what’s most important. Hands up if you’ve seen the monstrous one-page captures. Where, in addition to purpose and values there are brand purpose, brand values, brand personality, as well as strategic pillars, vision and mission and customer experience principles for good measure. Just to add curtains and sheers to the blinds and shutters. You get the idea.
It’s statement creep of the worst kind. Unnecessary and messy. The fuzziness gets in the way of people rallying around what matters most. Because after wading through 15 layers who can figure out what that is!
None of this suggests you shouldn’t update what no longer serves you. Although, before changing your name or logo perhaps first ask what problem you’re trying to solve. And if they genuinely form a barrier to success then go for it. But call it what it is. Changing how people pick you out of a lineup.
There are a few, very few, examples of genuine rebranding. Where the organisation changed the foundation aspects of how value was exchanged and stored.
Kimberly Clark selling their paper mills and going all in on a virtually unheard of consumer paper product called Kleenex. Nokia pivoting away from a cornucopia of products including tires and rubber boots to focus on mobile phones.
More usually, it’s a process where companies shift incrementally over time, both as a strategy and in response to the environment around them. Value in, value out. Over and over. Rethinking what customers want, suppliers need and the market demands.
Now, that’s a kind of rebranding I can get behind.
Thanks for reading