Calculated risk? PR stunt? Or throwing away years of brand building? Jaguar being the latest amongst slightly questionable branding decisions from big brands has me reflecting on some tops and flops of branding and marketing strategy.
The social media platform formerly known as Twitter, X. Was that this year? Nope. Still, I hated it enough to include it:
“Where has the Twitter blue bird gone, and why is the new logo an X?”
“The Guardian view on Twitter’s rebranding: X marks an everything or nothing gamble”
“Twitter’s Rebrand Is A Cautionary Lesson For Marketers. Here’s Why”
Now that Bluesky is having an interesting moment, I’m thinking again about how empty the X branding feels in comparison to the freedom and lightness of the late Larry (RIP). With Bluesky essentially “adopting” a visual for its branding, lovingly chosen and celebrated by its very own users, we get a sense of that warmth and lightness again. And the butterfly is a fantastic metaphor for transformation and opening up, concepts which are key to Bluesky’s strategy. And while we’re on the subject, why not follow PLMR over on Bluesky.
Within 2024, historic food brand Lyle’s Golden Syrup adapted its main branding and some of their packaging design, but of course that’s not what all the headlines said. Responses were wildly varied, from simple to slightly sensational:
“Tate & Lyle’s Golden Syrup rebrand drops dead lion”
“Lyle’s Golden Syrup changes dead lion logo after 150 years”
“Lyle’s Golden Syrup rebrand: justified or cultural vandalism?”
“Lyle’s Golden Syrup ‘throwing away history’ with rebrand, says founder’s descendant”
In other words, it served exactly the purpose they wanted it to, by causing just enough uproar 🦁 to galvanise the nostalgic and just generally remind people of their existence. Following this brief PR frenzy, I’m sure there were plenty of those yearning for “the golden years”, who couldn’t believe their luck when they stumbled across the classic tin in the supermarket. And once again the dead, fly-infested lion finds its forever home at the back of another cupboard.
This summer, one of my all-time favourite brand designs was retired and replaced, making a bit of a splash along the way:
“Museum of London reveals new name and ‘pigeon and splat’ logo”
“London Museum: Glittery pigeon poo splat logo divides opinion”
“Why is the Museum of London’s new logo dividing locals?”
I’ve always appreciated how clever the old logo was, layering up different historical/future shapes of London in an archaeological dig style. Now, disastrous SEO aside, this rebrand is one of the more disjointed of the year for me. Hand drawn doodles and porcelain 3D pigeons with a pastel palette felt like it was trying to force many modern, quirky concepts and elements together. Although, to be honest, that’s quite London.
Finally, on Jaguar’s “Copy Nothing” approach…
“Jaguar’s modernist rebrand sparks anger and mockery online”
“Jaguar unveils “unique and fearless” rebrand for “complete reset”
“Jaguar warned of ‘commercial suicide’ with ‘woke’ rebrand: ‘It’s a joke!'”
They picked a hell of a moment to do something so (intentionally) divisive, with the political landscape as it is. They’ve symbolically divorced their heritage, removing the iconic animal and even declaring that they’re absolutely fine with alienating their usual customers. This move away from their usual customer base is intentional, unapologetic, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more in store for us from Jaguar.
One thing is for certain, rebrands are powerful opportunities for businesses. Whether you’re being forced to rebrand due to a legal challenge, looking to cut through the noise or just tired of the logo you got for free from your best mate in 2009, it takes a team of thoughtful and incentive strategists to create something that resonates with your values and cuts through the noise.
If you’re thinking it might be time to make waves, get in touch on info@plmr.co.uk
