Brand Failures_ The Truth About the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time - Matt Haig [77]
Chapter Nine
Rebranding failures
Brands, like people, have a fear of the ageing process. They don’t want to grow old, because growing old means growing stale and once a brand has become old and stale it is as good as dead.
So how do brands delay the ageing process? Like people in the same situation, brands facing their mid-life crisis resort to drastic measures in order to stay young and relevant. Typical methods include changing their name, changing their overall look and even changing their brand ‘philosophy’. In order not to become old and tired, many companies embark on rebranding exercises to make themselves look more up-to-date and relevant to their target market.
Another reason to rebrand products is to make them fit with a global identity. In June 2010 the electricals retailer DSG which own Currys and PC World announced a 61 per cent jump in profits for the past year. Despite that excellent result in what could certainly be described as challenging trading conditions, John Browett, the company’s chief executive since December 2007, announced that the company would revert to its original brand name. Back in June 2005, Browett’s predecessor John Clare told the City that it had to jettison the Dixons brand for a new name, DSG International. This new name, he had insisted, would better reflect its ‘international reach’ as the group now operated in 13 countries and had plans to expand into Russia and Ukraine.
But now the company believes it important to go back to its roots, believing rebranding (again) could harness the strength of the 70-year old Dixons name.
Curiously there are no plans to put the Dixons brand name back on the high street, though they still plan to keep on 25 Dixons Travel stores at airports around Britain. Their retail brands will remain as rebranded in 2005 – Currys Megastores or Currys.digital. Watch this space, as they say! Also, in the UK Mars rebranded Opal Fruits and Marathon so that they had the same names as in the rest of the world. Hence they were changed to Starburst and Snickers, respectively. Although both brand makeovers were unpopular at the time, neither product lost out in terms of sales.
However, sometimes the decisions have to be reversed. When the chocolate-covered rice cereal Coco Pops had its name changed to Choco Krispies, a national poll discovered 92 per cent of Britons were unhappy about the change. Coco Pops returned and did better than ever.
Yet while the risks are great, rebranding remains more popular than ever. In the United States there are now around 3,000 company name changes every year. In 1990, the figure was closer to 1,000. The need to stay ahead means companies are prepared to gamble away their history and heritage for the promise of future profits.
‘Whatever made you successful in the past, won’t in the future,’ were the wise words of Leo Platt, CEO of Hewlett-Packard. If you stand still you will fall behind, seems to be the general message. Indeed, many of the most successful brands today retain their prominent position by evolving and updating their identity over time.
But while there is no denying that market trends now move faster than ever, companies that don’t think carefully before rebranding can risk undermining their previous marketing efforts. ‘Be sure to use research to consult your customers, as marketers are often so close to the brand that at times they can see a problem where there isn’t one,’ says Richard Duncan, managing director of South African marketing consultancy TBWA. ‘Whatever you do, be careful not to undermine the fundamental values and strengths of your brand and ensure that whatever you do is in sync with your business rationale and aims.’
While this sounds painfully obvious, there are enough examples of rebranding disasters to prove that it isn’t as easy as it sounds. After all, brands create an emotional connection with the consumer. Ever since the legendary