Rethink, Refocus, Reinvent, Rename: 4 Ways to Revitalize Your Brand

Your brand is your identity. Its value is built over time, step by step, brick by brick until it is recognizable, desired and even worn like a badge among your loyal customers. Once it’s established, it becomes the touchstone around which all of your marketing and business growth efforts stem.

But what happens when that momentum shifts and suddenly the value of your brand starts to wane. In a constantly changing marketplace, today’s top brand can become tomorrow’s relic. Your customers’ needs, habits or preferences start to shift. A new competitor emerges in the marketplace. New technology or new trends arise and undermine the relevance of your offering. A negative connotation attaches itself to your good name.

Is it time to just give up and pack it in? Not at all.

It is time, however, to retool your brand. Here are four ways you can approach the rebranding process and rekindle the flames of passion between your company and its customers.

1. Rethink.

Approach your product offering with new eyes, as if you have never seen it before. Forget your past success and look ahead to what it will take to capture a newer, broader buyers' market.

Ask yourself what will make your product relevant to today’s consumer. Does your product promote green living? Does it support a healthy, active lifestyle? Can it create greater efficiencies in an economy where everyone’s looking for new ways to stretch a dollar?

Fast food mega-monopoly McDonald’s is a prime example of how taking a fresh look at your company’s offerings can not only keep you relevant but help you thrive in an ever-shifting marketplace.

Established as a burger joint and maligned by the well-hyped documentary "Super-Size Me" as being synonymous with obesity and grease, McDonald’s took a step back and envisioned a restaurant where healthy offerings such as salads, fruit and yogurt could peacefully co-exist with good old-fashioned fast food fare.

This approach reaped immediate rewards, as customers who had left McDonald’s in droves in pursuit of healthier options discovered that it was finally safe to return to their old familiar favorite Golden Arches.

2. Refocus.

When it comes to rebranding, it’s vital to keep a keen eye on exactly who it is that you want to target.

It’s possible that your sales are flagging because in trying to increase your market share, you lost sight of who it is you serve best. In casting your net too wide, you may have alienated your most loyal customers.

Rebranding gives your company a chance to refocus and retool your efforts specifically to appeal to those who will realistically be most interested in and most likely to buy your products, rather than wasting time and money on a less effective, too-broad business plan.

When J.Crew saw its sales start to decline in 2003, the company hired former Gap CEO Millard Drexler to take action. Returning their focus to a narrower, more upscale clientele, the label began introducing more luxury items such as cashmere and tweed to their line alongside their traditional selection of tank tops and t-shirts. Add to that the endorsement of one very sophisticated First Lady – Michelle Obama – and the rebranding of J.Crew was complete.

3. Reinvent.

Would you believe that Burberry – yes, that Burberry – was once synonymous with gangwear in England? It was – so much so that one English pub even banned anyone wearing the label from entering its establishment.

What happened? In the 1970s and 1980s, the brand became associated with football thugs and hooligans. Imposter garments with the signature Burberry check print were sold to the masses, creating the impression that it was no longer an exclusive brand and undermining its desirability among affluent clientele.

Burberry struck back, relying heavily on a series of endorsements from young, A-list celebrities like Kate Moss, Agyness Deyn, Emma Watson and Rosie Huntington-Whitely to reposition the brand as fresh and appealing.

In addition to advertising heavily in glossies like GQ, Esquire, Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar, they also employ a viral marketing approach, placing ad banners on top fashion websites. Additionally, the brand appears at fashion weeks around the world without fail, hosting their own shows to present new lines, which keeps their name constantly in the fashion press. In doing so, Burberry has reinvented itself and reclaimed its historic stature as a high-end, aspirational brand.

4. Rename.

A complete change of name can be a risky strategy but one that can also be highly effective when implemented with perfect timing and execution.

A great example of how one company changed their fortunes by changing their name is the fast food chain originally known as Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Founded by Colonel Sanders in 1956, the company made the wide-sweeping decision in 1999 to shorten their name to simply "KFC." There are several prevailing theories as to why this change was ordered. Some say it was the desire to disassociate themselves from the word "fried" and all of its unhealthy connotations. Others claim the company wanted to remove the word "chicken" in reaction to pressure from government food regulators upset about treatment of livestock. Still others say the company removed the word "Kentucky" because the name was actually trademarked by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1990, slapping all who wanted to use the name with a hefty licensing fee. Whatever the real reason for the switch, KFC was reborn and sales skyrocketed.

Whatever the reasons, if your customers have lost their passion for your products and your sales numbers are feeling the squeeze, rebranding may prove to be just the shot in the arm you need to revitalize your revenues.

Mistrustcasting: A Tale of Two Brands

One day recently, a high school math class decided to conduct an experiment to ascertain whether Oreo’s Double Stuf cookies actually contain twice the “stuf” – crème filling – as implied by the treat’s name.

The class’s work yielded the faintly damning discovery that the Double Stuf contain only 1.86 more filling than the original incarnation – a shortage of 7 percent. Hardly headline-making news, right? After all, most folks would agree that it’s close enough and simply applaud the teacher’s creative, hand-on approach to this classroom exercise.

And that’s where Oreo should have left it, but they chose not to. Instead, when contacted about the matter by Business Insider, the company issued a formal statement claiming the math class had reached an inaccurate total and that their Double Stuf recipe does indeed include fully twice the amount of filling. So Business Insider put together its own experiment, which came down in favor of the math class.

Oreo’s response made this story bigger than it needed to be, and as a result, the brand’s overall reputation took a hit. After all, if they felt the need to lie about 7 percent of their filling, what else might they be hiding? The cookie controversy served up good fodder for a few days of news bites and morning drive-time humor, but given the public’s lasting love for Oreo, the Double Stuf kerfuffle blew over in short order.

More than filler

The Double Stuf debacle is an entertaining – if relatively innocuous – example of just how easily the integrity of even the most well-known brands can be called into question. That’s why the task of building and maintaining trust in your brand is such serious business. For more evidence, let’s take a closer look at BP and SC Johnson, two huge corporations with very different approaches to brand integrity – and very different reputations.

Both companies deal in products under close scrutiny in today’s increasingly green-minded business and marketing environments. BP is the world’s sixth largest petroleum fuel interest, and SC Johnson is one of the world’s largest producers of household cleaners.

If you look at their advertising and PR, both companies use strikingly similar language, which is logical, given that each company has a vested interest in portraying itself as environmentally responsible and forward-thinking.

But the court of public opinion tells a very different story, making it clear that their efforts to define themselves are yielding drastically different results.

BP’s big problem

More than three years after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still dealing with the aftermath on many fronts. In addition to the illegal practices which led to the spill, the company has been found guilty of felony for lying in its response to the disaster and has paid out more than $42 billion in clean-up costs, settlements and fines.

BP was found to have engaged in multiple deceptions before, during and after the spill. The company repeatedly refused to disclose accurate or timely information for months after the disaster, which resulted in a far greater impact on the environment than would have happened if the company would have been immediately forthcoming.

A visit to BP’s website shows that the spill still dominates much of the company’s PR efforts. That’s as it should be.

But even as BP touts its gulf clean-up efforts in carefully crafted feature articles, it releases defensive statements whenever its efforts and motives are called into question. For example, in a statement dated August 28, BP responds to recent allegations by the state of Louisiana claiming that BP has not adequately addressed the clean up. Here’s the money quote that leads the statement: "Any suggestion that BP has failed to address the clean up of the Louisiana coastline is both false and irresponsible.”

No acknowledgement of BP’s responsibility, no conciliatory tone indicating that BP is committed to repairing the damage it caused, no apology for all of the suffering. Just a hardline defense, with copy that reads like it was drafted by a stereotypical Hollywood lawyer. This antagonistic tone is at odds with the shiny, happy stories that appear throughout the special section of its site dedicated to the Gulf of Mexico restoration.

This stark discrepancy between rosy PR fluff pieces and sharp legal statements defines the very heart of BP’s brand integrity issue. This is a company whose practices are squarely at odds with the public image it attempts to project.

Start with the logo

Petroleum is hardly a “clean” business; the best any oil company can offer is diligent safety practices and commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.

When BP debuted its green sun logo in 2001, the flowery “helios” mark, it was a clear effort to position the brand as somehow “cleaner” and more environmentally conscious than its competitors. The green sun implies a very different focus than, say, an oil derrick looming over a seascape. Yet in the decade plus since its logo shift, BP has actually decreased its efforts in the arena of solar power, finally announcing plans to shutter them altogether in 2011.

The fact remains that BP is first and foremost an oil concern, with all the environmental risks that such companies encounter. Until BP’s research spending on alternative fuels exceeds the 50 percent mark, that logo is a blatant lie.

Follow the money

Many brands seeking to build trust with the public establish charitable foundations or make contributions to causes. With its image in desperate need of a reboot, BP has made significant donations to gulf cleanup efforts and regional charities that focus on hunger and housing. These are all high-profile, press-release-ready efforts.

It’s certainly better than nothing, and BP does seem to grasp the idea that it needs to spend big to show its concern.

But you won’t find much in the way of marine environmental research on BP’s books or any slowdown whatsoever in the company’s high-risk deepwater drilling projects. No, right along with its more environmentally friendly efforts like wind and biofuels, BP is still using the lion’s share of its research dollars to pursue the same kind of risky drilling that damaged the Gulf of Mexico so dramatically.

As John Bell writes in Forbes Magazine, “BP’s talk about caring for the environment was for naught, as its actions failed to match its message.” Small wonder that a site like boycottbp.com is still growing strong. Or that the brand ranked at number seven in MarketWatch’s 2013 poll of companies with the worst reputations.

SC Johnson’s evolving transparency

While SC Johnson certainly faces environmental concerns, it does have an inherent advantage over a company like BP. After all, a Gulf-scale tragedy is highly unlikely in the arena of household cleaners.

But this field carries its own set of risks. Many of SC Johnson’s products – insect repellents, cleaners and baby shampoo, to name a few – are used by families on a daily basis. And in the last decade, concerns have increased about how these types of products impact not only the health of customers but the greater environment as a whole.

In large part, SC Johnson has responded to such concerns with a careful trust-building approach that includes admission of mistakes and a proactive willingness to change corporate policy and behavior. While there have been a few bumps in the road, even their response to setbacks has been characterized by a tone that emphasizes responsibility over defensiveness.

Open policies

One major area of concern with consumers about household products is the ingredients. Many cleaners and air fresheners tout a natural, organic identity while their labels contain a long list of unpronounceable components unfamiliar to anyone lacking a degree in chemical engineering. In an effort to counteract this, SC Johnson launched its "What’s Inside SC Johnson" website in early 2009, where it has published complete ingredients lists for almost all of its products.

However, the company’s track record is not perfect. Its “Greenlist” label, featured on Windex and other products SC Johnson claimed passed its highest environmental standards, was the subject of several consumer-advocate lawsuits. Because the label closely resembled other third-party designations for independently vetted products, the suits rightly called into question the legitimacy of SC Johnson practice of promoting its own – potentially misleading – self-proclaimed green standard.

Response to criticism

One of the ways in which SC Johnson has been most successful in upholding the integrity of its brand is in its response to controversy. The company trades heavily on its identity as a family-owned business, something that can be difficult to buy given its global scope and multi-billion-dollar annual sales numbers. But when issues arise, it is not a corporate lawyer that does the talking for SC Johnson; it’s Fisk Johnson, CEO and true blood family representative.

In the case of the Greenlist issue, Johnson reiterated the company’s commitment to the environment, but admitted its misstep. “When you're out in front of an issue like this, it means that you're not always going to get it completely right, as was the case with this particular issue," he said.

SC Johnson has also demonstrated a willingness to change its formulas and policies ahead of any legal mandate – and also ahead of many competitors. The company has reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 42 percent since 2000, and it has installed two wind turbines at its largest global manufacturing facility, enabling that facility to produce most of its electrical energy onsite.

Integrity gets results

All of this earnest effort is certainly paying off for SC Johnson. In 2012, the United Nations Foundation for Social Change honored the company as a global Leader of Change, and in 2013, the company received an EPA Climate Leadership Award for Aggressive Goal Setting.

SC Johnson’s mix of staying true to its family roots, increasing transparency with customers and demonstrating a willingness to change combines to reinforce its reputation as a brand that operates with integrity. While the company isn’t perfect, its actions maintain consistency with its image. By any measure of consumer confidence, that’s a powerful – and to borrow from BP’s ill-used lexicon – sustainable strategy.