Change Hurts

There has been a lot of discussion lately about changing identities of the world-famous brands. Well, the fuss has always been up in forums, but with social media gaining more public attention some logo redesigns have become matters of global importance. Namely Gap, Starbucks, Tropicana.

John Nunziato, the author of the featured article tries to cool the (often anonymous) crowd down. Changing a logo is influenced by so many factors that the "like-unlike" scale is just not a sufficient judging criteria. Critics often (mostly) have no clue what's behind that symbol replacement. Getting even the smallest amendments through is a long and painful process, especially in big corporations.

The situation here is Estonia is often quite the opposite, paradoxically. Marketing departments of locally famous brands quite too often regard radical identity change as a remedy against business slowdown. We at Brand Manual have a few examples of projects that start with a "we need a new logo" brief - and ending with a thorough fix of their current identity. You get bored by your face long before your customers do - that's the mantra we keep repeating. Look at Budweiser, it has kept the same appearance for the past 140 years - and is still one of the greatest brands there is (you have to admit that, even if you don't like the beer). I struggle to find a good domestic analogue, though.

The bottom line - just changing your brand's identity wouldn't improve your business, period. But when your offer has really risen to the next level, then a logo refreshment can be a pretty effective way of getting attention. Especially if you have fans (and aficionados are attracted by great service, not a logo).