Rebranding Disaster From "www.businessinsider.com "

From: www.businessinsider.com

10 Major Rebranding Disasters And What You Should Learn From Them

 

1/11

   

 

 

Tags: Strategy, Features, Marketing | Get Alerts for these topics »

Short URL

Share:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Buzz
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• More about embedding posts » Embed
• More about Alerts » Alerts
• Newsletter

See Also

Can You Identify These 12 Brands By Their Trademarked Colors Alone?

INSTANT MBA: Don't Hire People Who Are Exactly Like You

Ron Johnson Reveals How He's Going To Make JC Penney Look More Like Apple

Advertisement

Email Sent!

You have successfully emailed the post.

10 Major Rebranding Disasters And What You Should Learn From Them

Bianca Male | Apr. 7, 2010, 1:31 PM | 445,732 | 31

justinlai via Flickr

A brand identity, name, and logo is a company's public face. So you'd think companies would be really careful in figuring out how to revamp that image.
Sadly, a good number of recent rebranding attempts seemed to just crash and burn.
We spoke with award-winning branding agency Method, Inc. and branding guru Rob Frankel about the worst rebranding disasters they've seen in the past few years.
The lesson? A successful rebranding involves overhauling a company's goals, message, and culture -- not just changing a name or a logo.
Also, messing with a classic is, more often than not, a bad idea.
Unfortunately, despite their massive marketing budgets, it seems like many major corporations (and one major international city) haven't gotten the memo.

The SciFi Channel's "text-friendly" new name is a slang word for syphilis

Maybe the SciFi Channel should have checked out urbandictionary.com before it rolled out its new name. They would have discovered that, in most parts of the world, "syfy" is a slang term for syphilis.

The company's main justification for the change was that, while they couldn't trademark the term "sci fi," they could own the alternate spelling.
In an interview for TVWeek, president David Howe explains another reason: "[T]he thing that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, is actually this is how you’d text it... It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip."
Not surprisingly, "the response was completely negative," Frankel tells us. "[The change] alienated many longtime fans, and it was completely ridiculed."

Tropicana underestimates their customers' attachment to a classic

Silly PepsiCo! All it was trying to do was bring its classic Tropicana OJ into the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the company underestimated how attached their customers had become to the old design. When it rolled out its new cartons in January 2009, the consumer backlash was immediate and powerful.
The New York Times reports that "[s]ome of those commenting described the new packaging as “ugly” or “stupid,” and resembling “a generic bargain brand” or a “store brand.""
After a month of being bombarded by e-mails, phone calls, and social media commentary, PepsiCo announced that it would promptly return to the old carton.

 

 

 

 

London may have won the bid, but its weird Olympic logo has everyone up in arms

If there's anything we've learned today, it's that you shouldn't mess around too much with a classic. And there are few things more classic than the Olympics.
But the organizers behind London's 2012 logo wanted to inject a little modernity into the branding of their Games. As their website puts it, "Our emblem is simple, distinct, bold and buzzing with energy.... It feels young in spirit... Not afraid to shake things up, to challenge the accepted. To change things."
Unfortunately, the unveiling was met with resounding disapproval, and even hostility.

ABC News reports that the logo, which cost $800,000 to create, was generally deemed as childish, ridiculous, ugly, and in no way representative of London or the Games. Visually, "it's really hard to understand what they're trying to say," Method's Alicia Bergin commented.
In an unofficial public poll by the BBC, 80% of those surveyed gave the logo the lowest possible ranking.

Radio Shack tries really, really hard to be hip, with "The Shack"

Described as "totally ridiculous" by our branding experts, Radio Shack's decision to call itself "The Shack" was a sad attempt to be hip.
"Why would anyone throw away decades of brand value (which actually shows up on the balance sheet as an intangible asset) just to try to be cool for a few minutes?" Frankel asks.
Engadget's Joshua Topolsky puts it aptly when he supposes that "they wanted us to immediately picture a remote location where very, very bad things happen."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital One revamps with a dated and irrelevant swoosh

This is another failed attempt by a large company to relate to consumers on a hipper level. Unfortunately, Capital One was about a decade too late with their addition of a "swoosh" in 2008.
Brand design blog Brand New reacted like this: "Nothing, in the year 2008, can justify the use of a swoosh."
"It doesn't add any distinction, and it's been done a million times before," Bergin tells us. "They wanted to have more of a consumer-facing feel, but this is too obvious."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accenture: The ultimate corporate name that means nothing

When Andersen Consulting cut ties with Arthur Andersen, they did the worst thing a company could do -- they let a marketing consultant choose the new brand name.
The result sounds like the quintessential, meaningless, "big corporation" name, Frankel says. Although it was supposedly inspired by the phrase "accent on the future," it tells the customer nothing.
As another one of Time's worst name changes, the article says, "The change cost Andersen/Accenture an estimated $100 million to execute and was regarded as one of the worst rebrandings in corporate history."
.

 

 

 

 

Blackwater tries to erase the past with "Xe" (pronounced 'Zee')

Blackwater tries to erase the past with "Xe" After some major human rights violations tainted Blackwater's name in 2007, the company took Wired's advice and tried to rename itself.
According to an ABC News report, the company explained that it chose 'Xe' because the word has "no connotations." It's completely meaningless... and confusing.

Unfortunately, a simple name change won't erase the public memory -- the company is still generally referred to as Blackwater, or some variation of "Blackwater, now renamed Xe", and it's struggling to get business

After some major human rights violations tainted Blackwater's name in 2007, the company took Wired's advice and tried to rename itself.
According to an ABC News report, the company explained that it chose 'Xe' because the word has "no connotations." It's completely meaningless... and confusing.
Unfortunately, a simple name change won't erase the public memory -- the company is still generally referred to as Blackwater, or some variation of "Blackwater, now renamed Xe", and it's struggling to get business.

We're not sure why Pepsi's new logo cost them $1 million to develop

Pepsi is no stranger to logo redesigns. But the company reportedly spent $1 million on their latest reincarnation, and it turned out like... this.
Frankel describes the attempt as a "[r]eal waste of time and money, especially if you've seen the design spec document... An amazing, purposeless document that has no brand value at all," yet cost Pepsi so much.
The white stripe on the new logo varies across Pepsi products, getting wider or thinner depending on product. The design team that spearheaded the campaign explains that they're supposed to be "smiles," but we don't really see it.
As this clever graphic from The Consumerist shows, the Pepsi logo seems to have been redone nearly once a decade over the last century -- while Coke's iconic logo has barely been touched. It's not hard to see which is the better strategy here.

 

 

 

Comcast introduces.... "Xfinity"

Named as one of Time magazine's Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes, Comcast's decision to re-name itself "Xfinity" in 11 of its U.S. markets was just awful.
As we reported, "Xfinity? Seriously? What the heck does that mean?"
"Comcast hopes the new moniker will help customers forget the high prices and poor customer service for which the company has been criticized in the past," the Times article says. "Will the name change work? Probably not, but at least it'll sound a bit edgier when you're put on hold ... with Xfinity."

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then there's Aol. (yes, with the period) -- and the jury is still out.

According to our sources, the reaction to the new Aol. has been split relatively evenly. But the key will be whether or not the company can fulfill the new identity they've adopted through their services and products.
"They've signaled they're re-inventing themselves.... It's ambitious," Bergin says. "The real challenge is can they make all of their products live up to the promise of this new brand."
The Brand New blog points out, "If AOL is committed to shedding not just its Time Warner shares but also its public perception as a web dinosaur then this identity can do it for them."
That is the key to a successful rebranding, after all -- "the real reason to rebrand is to alter the expectations you're setting for the public," Frankel explains. "Changing your brand strategy means becoming different company.... it's not just changing your name or your logo."

Exponential Smothing Techniques for Forecasting

Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.1
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Average Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1081.2	-8.8
4	953	1082.08	129.08
5	858	1069.172	211.172
6	868	1048.055	180.0548
7	1034	1030.049	-3.95068
8	1088	1030.444	-57.555612
9	1069	1036.2	-32.800051
10	856	1039.48	183.479954
11	876	1021.132	145.131959
12	796	1006.619	210.618763	1704.671	2395.544	937.041
13	1023	985.5569	-37.443113
14	1003	989.3012	-13.698802
15	1036	990.6711	-45.328922
16	835	995.204	160.20397
17	747	979.1836	232.183573
18	856	955.9652	99.965216
19	1008	945.9687	-62.031306
20	1036	952.1718	-83.828175
21	920	960.5546	40.5546425
22	805	956.4992	151.499178
23	816	941.3493	125.34926
24	776	928.8143	152.814334
25	X	913.5329	X
MAD					99.8143333
CV					12.8626718
BIAS				71.02796
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.2
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1078.4	-11.6
4	953	1080.72	127.72
5	858	1055.176	197.176
6	868	1015.741	147.7408
7	1034	986.1926	-47.80736
8	1088	995.7541	-92.245888
9	1069	1014.203	-54.79671
10	856	1025.163	169.162632
11	876	991.3301	115.330105
12	796	968.2641	172.264084	1073.695	2368.9569	937.041
13	1023	933.8113	-89.188733
14	1003	951.649	-51.350986
15	1036	961.9192	-74.080789
16	835	976.7354	141.735369
17	747	948.3883	201.388295
18	856	908.1106	52.1106361
19	1008	897.6885	-110.31149
20	1036	919.7508	-116.24919
21	920	943.0006	23.0006457
22	805	938.4005	133.400517
23	816	911.7204	95.7204132
24	776	892.5763	116.576331
25	X	869.2611	X
MAD					98.7065375
CV					10.5338547
BIAS				44.73728
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.3
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1075.6	-14.4
4	953	1079.92	126.92
5	858	1041.844	183.844
6	868	986.6908	118.6908
7	1034	951.0836	-82.91644
8	1088	975.9585	-112.04151
9	1069	1009.571	-59.429056
10	856	1027.4	171.399661
11	876	975.9798	99.9797628
12	796	945.9858	149.985834	795.6667	2381.1651	937.041
13	1023	900.9901	-122.00992
14	1003	937.5931	-65.406941
15	1036	957.2151	-78.784859
16	835	980.8506	145.850599
17	747	937.0954	190.095419
18	856	880.0668	24.0667934
19	1008	872.8468	-135.15324
20	1036	913.3927	-122.60727
21	920	950.1749	30.1749101
22	805	941.1224	136.122437
23	816	900.2857	84.285706
24	776	875	98.9999942
25	X	845.3	X
MAD					99.2152125
CV					10.58814
BIAS				33.15278
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.4
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1072.8	-17.2
4	953	1079.68	126.68
5	858	1029.008	171.008
6	868	960.6048	92.6048
7	1034	923.5629	-110.43712
8	1088	967.7377	-120.26227
9	1069	1015.843	-53.157363
10	856	1037.106	181.105582
11	876	964.6633	88.6633492
12	796	929.198	133.19801
13	1023	875.9188	-147.08119	643.3754	2366.088	937.041
14	1003	934.7513	-68.248717
15	1036	962.0508	-73.94923
16	835	991.6305	156.630462
17	747	928.9783	181.978277
18	856	856.187	0.18696633
19	1008	856.1122	-151.88782
20	1036	916.8673	-119.13269
21	920	964.5204	44.5203847
22	805	946.7122	141.712231
23	816	890.0273	74.0273385
24	776	860.4164	84.4164031
25	X	826.6498	X
MAD					98.587
CV					10.5210978
BIAS				26.80731
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.5
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1070	-20
4	953	1080	127
5	858	1016.5	158.5
6	868	937.25	69.25
7	1034	902.625	-131.375
8	1088	968.3125	-119.6875
9	1069	1028.156	-40.84375
10	856	1048.578	192.578125
11	876	952.2891	76.2890625
12	796	914.1445	118.144531	545.1074	2354.721	937.041
13	1023	855.0723	-167.92773
14	1003	939.0361	-63.963867
15	1036	971.0181	-64.981934
16	835	1003.509	168.509033
17	747	919.2545	172.254517
18	856	833.1273	-22.872742
19	1008	844.5636	-163.43637
20	1036	926.2818	-109.71819
21	920	981.1409	61.1409073
22	805	950.5705	145.570454
23	816	877.7852	61.7852268
24	776	846.8926	70.8926134
25	X	811.4463	X
MAD					98.113375
CV					10.470553
BIAS				22.71281
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.6
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1067.2	-22.8
4	953	1080.88	127.88
5	858	1004.152	146.152
6	868	916.4608	48.4608
7	1034	887.3843	-146.61568
8	1088	975.3537	-112.64627
9	1069	1042.941	-26.058509
10	856	1058.577	202.576596
11	876	937.0306	61.0306386
12	796	900.4123	104.412255
13	1023	837.7649	-185.2351	474.0228	2300.624	937.041
14	1003	948.906	-54.094039
15	1036	981.3624	-54.637616
16	835	1014.145	179.144954
17	747	906.658	159.657981
18	856	810.8632	-45.136807
19	1008	837.9453	-170.05472
20	1036	939.9781	-96.021889
21	920	997.5912	77.5912443
22	805	951.0365	146.036498
23	816	863.4146	47.4145991
24	776	834.9658	58.9658396
25	X	799.5863	X
MAD					95.8593333
CV					10.2300042
BIAS				19.75095
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.7
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1064.4	-25.6
4	953	1082.32	129.32
5	858	991.796	133.796
6	868	898.1388	30.1388
7	1034	877.0416	-156.95836
8	1088	986.9125	-101.08751
9	1069	1057.674	-11.326252
10	856	1065.602	209.602124
11	876	918.8806	42.8806373
12	796	888.8642	92.8641912
13	1023	823.8593	-199.14074	418.7695	2210.2346	937.041
14	1003	963.2578	-39.742223
15	1036	991.0773	-44.922667
16	835	1022.523	187.5232
17	747	891.257	144.25696
18	856	790.2771	-65.722912
19	1008	836.2831	-171.71687
20	1036	956.4849	-79.515062
21	920	1012.145	92.1454814
22	805	947.6436	142.643644
23	816	847.7931	31.7930933
24	776	825.5379	49.537928
25	X	790.8614	X
MAD					92.0931083
CV					9.82807672
BIAS				17.44873
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.8
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	-28
3	1090	1061.6	28.4
4	953	1084.32	-131.32
5	858	979.264	-121.264
6	868	882.2528	-14.2528
7	1034	870.8506	163.14944
8	1088	1001.37	86.629888
9	1069	1070.674	-1.6740224
10	856	1069.335	-213.3348
11	876	898.667	-22.666961
12	796	880.5334	-84.533392	-374.2	2097.857	937.041
13	1023	812.9067	210.093322
14	1003	980.9813	22.0186643
15	1036	998.5963	37.4037329
16	835	1028.519	-193.51925
17	747	873.7039	-126.70385
18	856	772.3408	83.6592299
19	1008	839.2682	168.731846
20	1036	974.2536	61.7463692
21	920	1023.651	-103.65073
22	805	940.7301	-135.73015
23	816	832.146	-16.146029
24	776	819.2292	-43.229206
25	X	784.6458	X
MAD					87.4107083
CV					9.32837606
BIAS				-15.5914
Exponential Smothing Techniques
Ft=αD(t-1) + (1-α)Ft-1
		α=0.9
Time Period	Sales(Di)	Fi	(Fi-Di)	Σ(Fi-Di)	Σ│Fi-Di│	Di
1	1084	1084	0
2	1056	1084	28
3	1090	1058.8	-31.2
4	953	1086.88	133.88
5	858	966.388	108.388
6	868	868.8388	0.8388
7	1034	868.0839	-165.91612
8	1088	1017.408	-70.591612
9	1069	1080.941	11.9408388
10	856	1070.194	214.194084
11	876	877.4194	1.41940839
12	796	876.1419	80.1419408
13	1023	804.0142	-218.98581	337.7598	1989.779	937.041
14	1003	1001.101	-1.8985806
15	1036	1002.81	-33.189858
16	835	1032.681	197.681014
17	747	854.7681	107.768101
18	856	757.7768	-98.22319
19	1008	846.1777	-161.82232
20	1036	991.8178	-44.182232
21	920	1031.582	111.581777
22	805	931.1582	126.158178
23	816	817.6158	1.61581777
24	776	816.1616	40.1615818
25	X	780.0162	X
MAD					82.9074583
CV					8.8477941
BIAS				14.07333