শুক্রবার, ৩০ মার্চ, ২০১২

Rebranding Disaster From "www.businessinsider.com "


From: www.businessinsider.com

10 Major Rebranding Disasters And What You Should Learn From Them

 
1/11
   
 
The SciFi Channel's Tropicana underestimates their customers' attachment to a classicLondon may have won the bid, but its weird Olympic logo has everyone up in armsRadio Shack tries really, really hard to be hip, with Capital One revamps with a dated and irrelevant swooshAccenture: The ultimate corporate name that means nothingBlackwater tries to erase the past with We're not sure why Pepsi's new logo cost them $1 million to developComcast introduces.... And then there's Aol. (yes, with the period) -- and the jury is still out.Have a PR crisis on your hands? These will make you feel better!
 

Short URL

Share:

See Also

colors

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

Margaret Heffernan

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

JC Penney Fresh Air Event

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

tropicana carton redesign
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