There is a clear answer. Brands represent a company, but it’s the people who fill the brand with meaning. They grow fond of it because they associate certain experiences, values and expectations with it. And you can’t change that over night—you also shouldn’t.
Thread
This post has been deleted
That’s true. The meaning of a brand is shaped by the people, and those connections take time to build. But doesn’t a brand also have rights to evolve? For better. Today’s ecological problems and ethical values deserve over night actions. No?
My response got butchered by Threads. Not the first time this happened. – In essence: improve the products and services, make them ethically sound and sustainable, and you’ll change the brand perception too.
No worries—What’s wrong about a brand already delivers a good experience and say we will look like this now? I think “time heals all designs” as long as they keep it right with experience which creates the gut-feeling or brand. For people, any change is uncomfortable at first.
If you’re referring to the recent Jaguar branding change: they changed the look and not the virtues. Instead they’re trying to implement new values which aren’t mirroring the brand perception, hence the conflict.
It all comes down to heritage. If you’re a startup and haven’t had years of a history, you can switch logos like underwear. It doesn’t affect much of your brand perception.
Not specifically Jaguar but the same reactions on internet after each rebranding. I find it wrong to judge without seeing the briefing, goals etc. How would you handle their change? Maybe a sister-brand for electric age?
The look of brand assets have minimal influence on the brand perception if it doesn’t perform through product experience.