![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132116\/pexels-photo-14303.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"brand](\"https:\/\/assets.crowdspring.com\/marketing\/landing-page\/brand-archetype-hero.png\")
<\/div>When done wrong, rebranding can, at best, go unnoticed and make no impact. At worst, you run the risk of alienating consumers and causing profits to dive.<\/p>\n
Here are five rebranding failures to help you gracefully avoid these rebranding pitfalls yourself.<\/h2>\nRadio Shack<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132118\/radioshack.png\")
<\/p>\n
With the halcyon days of gathering around the family radio long past, Radio Shack is no longer a name that conjures images of cutting-edge technology. When Lee Applbaum stepped in as Radio Shack\u2019s chief marketing officer in 2008, he sought to distance the brand from its more antiquated roots by rebranding as \u201cThe Shack.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tech reviewers panned the new nickname. Charlie Sorrel of Wired called it<\/a> \u201c\u2026an attempt to be down with the kids. It\u2019s almost embarrassing\u2026\u201d while Joshua Topolski of Engadget pointed out<\/a> that it caused one to \u201c\u2026immediately picture a remote location where very, very bad things happen.\u201d Ultimately, the consumers agreed.<\/p>\n Despite a new focus on wireless technologies in their retail locations to accompany the new name (and a small bump in profits immediately following the rebrand), Radio Shack continued to decline, and \u201cThe Shack\u201d was abandoned. In retrospect, Applbaum realized that the silly nickname was not their only mistake: \u201cWe had alienated the very consumer that had given us that core credibility in electronics.\u201d<\/p>\n Radio Shack had established itself as a resource for DIY electronics enthusiasts, and that consumer niche had kept them aloft for years. When they rebranded as \u201cThe Shack,\u201d they turned their back on those DIY hobbyists to pursue modern tech-savvy consumers. However, the broader tech competition proved too stiff, and Radio Shack filed for bankruptcy in February 2015.<\/p>\n Choose a new brand name<\/a>, logo<\/a>, and corporate identity that won\u2019t alienate your most profitable audience.<\/p>\n And, if you\u2019re going fishing for a new audience, make sure it\u2019s a fish you can catch.<\/p>\n On January 8th, 2009, Tropicana revealed a new packaging design for their Pure Premium orange juice; on February 23rd, 2009, they announced that they would return to their original design. What went wrong, and how did it happen so quickly? Let\u2019s take a look.<\/p>\n The original Tropicana logo featured a unique, signature design\u2014 an orange punctured by a straw. The logo implied that Tropicana\u2019s juice was fresh, undiluted, and direct from the orange. The singularity and playfulness of the orange and straw visual made for a powerful brand image. It was instantly recognizable on the shelves and had had years to establish a relationship of trust with Tropicana\u2019s consumers. The new packaging design discarded the time-tested logo and font\u2026 and failed to replace them with much of anything at all.<\/p>\n The new image for Tropicana\u2019s packaging depicted a large glass of orange juice, which unfortunately read as a flat, orange gradient. The traditional Tropicana font was traded for a more streamlined modern font, and every last bit of recognizable character was lost. Founder of thebrandingjournal.com, Marion, pointed out \u201cTropicana, while trying to modernize the brand, didn\u2019t respect one of the most important branding rules any company should consider: the product identification and recognition by the consumer.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s possible that some consumers couldn\u2019t even find Tropicana on the shelves because of how stark the differences in packaging were. Those who did find the newly packaged Tropicana strongly disapproved. Information Resource, Inc.<\/a> reported that Tropicana\u2019s sales dropped by 20% immediately following their brand relaunch.<\/p>\n Aim for a signature look that says something about who your company is. If you already have one, abandoning your signature, look for a nondescript design is a step in the wrong direction. Keep what works for you and discard what doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n PricewaterhouseCoopers took the rebranding plunge in 2002 when they decided to sell off their business’s consulting branch. Bizarrely, they chose to name their new consulting offshoot after a day of the week: Monday. The strangely vague and unrelated new name was met with immediate ridicule and was abandoned within a year. There are two valuable lessons to be learned from this rebranding flop.<\/p>\n The first lesson is purely common sense\u2014 a name that has nothing to do with your business tells your audience nothing about your business; and, consequently, nothing about why they should care.<\/p>\n The second lesson is all about search engine optimization. Andrew Shotland of Search Engine Land<\/a> urges his readers to avoid changing their business name to avoid what he calls \u201cthe SEO equivalent of root canal.\u201d In other words, keeping the same business and domain name ensures that consumers can find you after you\u2019ve unveiled your new brand identity. It probably goes without saying then that it\u2019s not a great idea to both change your website\u2019s domain name and select a new name that\u2019s so ubiquitous that your business will never be found in a Google search again.<\/p>\n \u201cMonday\u201d is not explicitly related to PwC\u2019s financial consulting business, nor is it unique enough to make a helpful search engine term. Potential clients would be forced to comb through pages and pages of \u201cMonday\u201d results before they finally stumbled upon the Monday they were looking for. They would most likely give up long before then.<\/p>\n Uniqueness and Specificity are essential. Select a name that will allow your audience to find you in the online crowd.<\/p>\n And, if changing your name is part of your rebranding plans, choose a name that reflects who your company is and what you do.<\/p>\n Hershey\u2019s is a company well-known for its sweet chocolate confections. Sadly, their 2009 rebrand drew lots of attention; but the reason wasn\u2019t sweet. Hershey\u2019s goal for their rebrand was to embrace their past while preparing for their future with a new, more modern logo design.<\/p>\n According to Mike Wege, Hershey\u2019s Chief Growth and Marketing Officer, \u201cWe have an amazing portfolio of iconic brands in confectionery and snacking. Our updated company brand and refreshed visual identity is an expression of our progression to a modern, innovative company.\u201d<\/p>\n Hershey\u2019s original logo featured a 3-dimensional design depicting their name and a dainty, silver-wrapped Hershey\u2019s Kiss at the far right side. While utilizing a flat, modern style and font, their new logo remains reminiscent of the previous, well-known logo. However, the reworked Kiss strongly resembles a brown, stylized steaming pile of poo. This did not go unnoticed.<\/p>\n The new Hershey Kiss emblem has been widely mocked on the web. Rich Duprey of The Motley Fool<\/a> noted, \u201cHaving your chocolates associated with a pile of poo isn’t typically seen as a key to successful brand marketing.\u201d It should be no surprise that the Kiss emblem has been disconnected from the primary logo and banished from Hershey\u2019s website.<\/p>\n Apply a critical eye to potential rebranding visuals for an inappropriate faux pas. In a world dominated by social media, consumer opinion travels at the speed of light, making it even more important than ever to ensure that the face your business puts forward will not invite outright mockery or scorn.<\/p>\n Mozilla, the creator of the popular open design web browser Firefox, executed a rebrand of their own in January 2017. The new logo reads \u201cmoz:\/\/a,\u201d incorporating a fragment of URL code in place of letters. Mozilla\u2019s creative director Tim Murray says, \u201cBecause it has a portion of URL embedded in the middle of the logo, you know this must be some kind of internet company,\u201d Some feel that this is too heavy-handed.<\/p>\n Alex Crantz of Gizmodo<\/a> had this to say, \u201cYes, Tim. That was a good plan twenty years ago\u2026 But we live in 2017, Tim, and instead of sounding or looking cool, Mozilla appears painfully out of touch.\u201d Crantz goes on to point out that by harkening back to Mozilla\u2019s more successful earlier days, it simply underscores how painfully their business has waned since then.<\/p>\nHow to avoid this:<\/h4>\n
Tropicana<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132117\/tropicana.png\")
<\/p>\nHow to avoid this:<\/h4>\n
PricewaterhouseCoopers<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132117\/pwc.png\")
<\/p>\nHow to avoid this:<\/h4>\n
Hershey\u2019s<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132117\/hershey.png\")
<\/p>\nHow to avoid this:<\/h4>\n
Mozilla<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/27132116\/mozilla.png\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.crowdspring.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/06164945\/small-business-blog-master-cta.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"