Related posts:
Whether iSnack 2.0 was a publicity stunt from the start or a genuine renaming gone wrong, it’s provided a great case study in branding and rebranding. So what lessons can we learn from iSnack 2.0?
The naming of the new Kraft product Cheesybite proved to be a highly amusing spectacle. Whether or not the antics employed by Kraft in the naming of its new product were a ploy to gain publicity or a genuine naming gone wrong saga, the company has successfully launched its new product with hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of free publicity.
While I understand this was a launch of a complementary product to an existing household name, the whole debate got me thinking about the wisdom versus the perils of rebranding, especially when it might affect an existing, highly successful, universally known and loved local brand, such as Vegemite. I mean what can go wrong with a brand as strong as Vegemite? There isn’t much to stuff up. Or is there?
Rebrands through the ages
In a two-minute office poll, we were able to come up with a list of rebrands that inspired significant media debate and opposition at the time. These included the reformulated Coke in the 1980s, the ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ Australian tourism campaign and the British Airways image update in the mid-90s. It would seem however that often the short-term pain endured by a rebrand will offer long-term gain, especially if you consider the huge kick to product awareness generated by all that free publicity.
When New Coke was launched in 1985 to replace the original, much loved existing Coke formula, there was a huge public outcry. The new drink was considered a failure and the original formula reinstated. Although I would argue that this was a ‘bad’ or poorly researched rebranding exercise, the overall result was very positive for the original Coke formula, with a major spike in sales, renewed popularity and a consolidation of customer commitment. The advertising agency and head honchos at Coke might have taken a lot of flack, but was the product damaged? Not that I can see.
Rebrands gone wrong
Then consider the campaign to market Australia to the world. “Where the bloody hell are you?” was not popular with Australians when it was launched and, even more importantly, not popular with anyone anywhere, as the tourists stayed away in droves. GFC or poor tourism campaign, the campaign itself became well known, with opinions and blogs turning up everywhere. Unlike Coke, it would be interesting to see if the customers showed their displeasure by searching out the product despite the campaign. And maybe Australia will get on the holiday agenda for many for whom the campaign failed for first time round. Let’s hope the next $20 million the Government is planning to spend on a new branding campaign is perhaps better researched!
Rebrands for mergers
A different circumstance is when two companies merge and there is a solid argument in favour of rebranding for e.g. the launch of BHP Billiton in 2001. In this case, there is an overall sense of double the strength of two iconic names, greater efficiencies in advertising, marketing and general business costs. There is almost a window in which the market expects changes to be made to the look and feel of the brand as the new company revises business objectives and positions itself for future growth and success. At the time, the company received a lot of criticism for the estimated $400,000 rebranding spend, but I am not aware of any damage at all was done to the brand of either or both of these two companies. A good outcome overall.
Pages: 1 2
Related posts:
Print » 
Send to a friend>>
cforms contact form by delicious:days