Everybody loves hits. But there are misses too!
It is hard to believe that even global brands donâ€™t get rebranding right at times.
I know of two such examples that were widely discussed among consumer & designer communities that went so adverse that the brands went back to their earlier avatars.
Tropicana, the leading juice brand & GAP, the fashion brand underwent these misses in 2009 & 2010 respectively.
While Tropicana pulled back the change within two months after seeing about 20% drop in sales, GAP is supposed to have retreated within a week because of huge online furor among GAP fans.
Tropicana team showed amazing confidence in accepting its mis-judged design expression and displayed respect to the consumer who simply did not like the new packaging and expressed it vehemently by switching to other brands.
1. The new design looked much like a store brand than the earlier design that showed more insights into the consumersâ€™ world. Too much text, nearly no imagery & vertical branding added to this feel.
2. â€œ100% Orangeâ€â€¦ well, a Tropicana consumer was most obviously aware of this. Such emphasis on it nearly made the consumer lose interest in the brand.
3. With the new hierarchy and absence of images, it became extremely cumbersome for a regular consumer to pick up his/her regular pack.
4. Deep saturated colours became pale versions thereby losing the â€œrich-tasteâ€ cues.
5. Earlier logotype was warmer, more like a cottage brand; the new one had nothing ownable in it. It was just a commonly used cold font.
We never saw the failed rebranding & packaging because India probably figured way later in the change introduction.
Similarly, we are yet to see rebranded Pepsi that is now 4 years old in the USA.
GAP had a different story altogether. They probably hadnâ€™t heard the saying â€œIf it ainâ€™t broke, donâ€™t fix itâ€.
In 2010, days before the pre-Christmas sales begin, GAP changed its fascia overnight from regal blue to a sterile white, its logo from tall, slender cap serifs to basic Helvetica and a strangely placed square. GAP fans all over the works went furious on Twitter & facebook. In just a couple of days, GAP marketing team started explaining how this is a part of reinvention & how they would really appreciate if GAP fans contributed their logo design suggestions. In next couple of days they got huge amount of logo suggestions done by amateurs. This made the designer community go mad & fans even madder. Finally on Day 6, GAP just went back to its old fascia.
Often, when a large brand reinvents itself to align with the evolving audience, it tends to take risks and in the process loses its current equity consciously. There is nothing wrong in this and there will be a miss such as Tropicana or GAP once in while. But does that mean we play safe? And then, how will there be innovation in the world of branding if we are risk averse? !