Rebrand or Brand Adaptation? What’s the difference?
In September of 2013, millions of iPhone users turned on their phones after upgrading to iOS 7 and immediately felt the effect of the shift from skeuomorphic to flat design. Gone was the lifelike aesthetic that defined “skeuomorphism”, and in its place was a simple, flat design with icons that bordered on cartoonish. The same design shift was occurring on brand websites across the Internet, and pretty soon the large majority of brands with an app in the App Store mirrored this new design philosophy in their color and graphic schemes.
Hundreds of brands, from media companies to large financial institutions and airlines, made a conscious choice to move toward some version of flat design.
Earlier this year, Netflix introduced a new standalone icon, a single ‘N’ with a red ribbon design, to complement its red and white “Netflix” that had been its default logo to that point. Netflix’s official statement said that “The current Netflix logo will still remain, and the icon will start to be incorporated into our mobile apps along with other product integrations in the near future.”
But do these two cases qualify as rebrands, or are they just brand adaptations? When a brand moved its visual elements from skeuomorphic design over to flat, it wasn’t a true rebrand so much as it was a shift. When Netflix introduced the ‘N’, it wasn’t an entirely new logo so much as it was an adaptation.
It’s important to draw that distinction, and to acknowledge that there are two kinds of shifts that a brand can experience: elemental and executional.
The Elemental Brand Shift
This is a true rebrand, seeking to change the emotional drivers behind the brand identity. The brand wants the outside world to have new ideas about it, so it first develops new ideas about itself. For example, if a company is seen by its customers as “stuffy,” but wants to shed that label and be seen as more “lighthearted,” this would require an elemental brand shift.
An elemental brand shift would also be necessary if a brand wanted to shed its perception as an “elitist way” for people to “roll around San Francisco like ballers,” and instead be seen more as an “egalitarian offering” that promises to be “the future of logistics.” That was the case for Uber, which underwent what Wired.com called a “radical rebranding” in February of 2016. Looking to shift public perception as it grew and legitimized itself as a company, Uber completely overhauled its design. If you’re an Uber user, you probably remember that first time you needed a ride after their rebrand, and not being able to locate the app for a minute on your phone before realizing what you were looking for—that black and white ‘U’ icon—was completely gone, and in its place was the new square-inside-a-circle icon.
The Executional Brand Shift
This shift is not as drastic, but just as important. An executional brand shift is fitting the same brand elements to new channels and tastes. This was what Netflix accomplished with its new ‘N’ icon, and what brands were striving for when they transitioned to flat design in 2013. New social and mobile formats necessitated a standalone icon, so they developed an extension of their brand that would exist more naturally in those environments. The elements remain the same, but the way in which they are conveyed evolves by necessity.
Netflix themselves refuted the idea that they had a new logo or underwent a rebrand, saying simply that their new ‘N’ icon was “a piece of statement jewelry” meant to “add a little bit of flair.”
Brand traditionalists might argue that adding “flair” runs the risk of diluting whatever equity a brand has built up, and jeopardizing brand consistency. Those brand traditionalists probably never had to worry about all the channels and formats offered by the current digital landscape, however. Marketers and brand managers today have the unenviable task of establishing a presence on dozens of social media channels and online directories. Each of these channels has a built-in behavior and visual language that users respond to, and adapting the same core brand elements to fit those specific visual languages is crucial.
The surprise should not have been that Netflix introduced a new standalone icon, but that they did not do it sooner.
When a brand is in need of a shift, the first question to ask is this: What are we looking to accomplish? If it’s delivering the same core brand identity to new audiences, or across new channels, then an executional shift is in order. Maybe the answer is simply developing a new standalone icon when before the brand got away with its whole name as its logo. If the goal is more rooted in identity and core values, then an elemental shift, or a true “rebrand,” is probably the best strategy.
Knowing the difference between the two, and acting accordingly, will go a long way in continually delivering a brand experience that consumers will love.
Chris Hall is CEO and founder of Bynder.
Related articles:
