Messy. Expensive. Emotional. Disruptive. Political. A can of worms.
'Rebrand' is often the self-diagnosis at times of challenge or change. But it's rarely the right strategy.
Rebrands require endorsement and engagement from the whole business and can take years to implement or recover from. And the greatest risk in the transition is losing equity and salience, the core function of a brand.
Most of the time, there's a better, more targeted response.
There are five transformation points in a brand's lifecycle, each with different symptoms that require different interventions:
Build → Turning an idea into a brand? Create it.
Scale → Growing fast and losing consistency? Systemise it.
Expand → Moving into new markets? Extend it.
Unify → Merging, acquiring, or managing a mess of sub-brands? Consolidate it.
Evolve → Losing ground or relevance? Refresh it.
The right intervention is focused and clinical. It can go relatively unnoticed by those who don't need to be involved, meaning it gets done more efficiently and effectively, and with far less internal politics.
A rebrand sits outside this framework entirely. It's a break-glass-in-emergency scenario, only warranted when you need to put real distance between the old brand and the new. It should be a last resort, not a first response.
Misdiagnosis here is costly. Before heading down the rebrand path, ask: which of these five stages are you actually in?
—
Weekly insights on creative leadership in your inbox.
Weekly insights on creative leadership in your inbox.
