A brand comes to their agency and says 'we need a rebrand.' Nine times out of ten, what they actually need is a strategy, a positioning, or just better execution of what they already have. But a rebrand sounds decisive. It feels like action. New logo, new colors, new website. Look, we're doing something!
Most rebrands fail because they change the surface without changing the substance. A new visual identity on top of the same unclear positioning is just expensive wallpaper on a crumbling wall. If you couldn't articulate why anyone should care about you before the rebrand, a new font isn't going to solve that.
When Apple removed the headphone jack, they weren't solving a design problem. They were making a statement about the future they intended to create. The backlash was predictable. The AirPods revenue was the plan.
The rebrands that work (Old Spice going from grandpa soap to absurdist comedy brand, Burberry going from chavvy to luxury again, Apple's return from the wilderness) all share one thing: the visual change followed a substantive strategic shift. The brand actually became different. The rebrand just announced the change that had already happened.
My test for whether a rebrand is necessary: can you explain what will be different after the rebrand without pointing to any visual element? If the answer is just 'we'll look more modern,' save your money. Looking modern is what happens when you have a clear point of view and express it confidently. It's a symptom, not a solution.
I love rebrands when they're real. I've worked on some at Nemo that genuinely transformed companies. But I'm honest with clients when what they need isn't a rebrand. It's a mirror.
But I'm honest with clients when what they need isn't a rebrand. It's a mirror.
Truffles has opinions about this. She walked across my keyboard and added 'sdfgh' to the draft, which honestly isn't worse than most brand copy I've read today.