Hubbry Logo
RebrandingRebrandingMain
Open search
Rebranding
Community hub
Rebranding
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Rebranding
Rebranding
Rebranding
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Air Line Diner, partially rebranded as Jackson Hole Diner
Brand management
Strategy
Culture
Positioning
Architecture

Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, concept or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.[1] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand's logo, name, legal names, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate.

Rebranding can be applied to new products, mature products, or even products still in development. The process can occur through a change in marketing strategy or in various other situations such as Chapter 11 corporate restructuring, union busting, or bankruptcy. Rebranding can also refer to a change in a company or corporate brand that may own several sub-brands for products or companies.

Corporations

[edit]

Rebranding became something of a fad at the turn of the millennium, with some companies rebranding several times. The rebranding of Philip Morris to Altria was done to help the company shed its negative image. Other rebrandings, such as the British Post Office's attempt to rebrand itself as Consignia, have proved such a failure that millions more had to be spent going back to square one.

In a study of 165 cases of rebranding,[1] Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) found that, whether a rebranding follows from corporate strategy (e.g., M&A) or constitutes the actual marketing strategy (change the corporate reputation), it aims at enhancing, regaining, transferring, and/or recreating the corporate brand equity.[1]

According to Sinclair (1999:13),[2] business the world over acknowledges the value of brands. “Brands, it seems, alongside ownership of copyright and trademarks, computer software and specialist know-how, are now at the heart of the intangible value investors place on companies.” Companies in the 21st century may find it necessary to relook their brand in terms of its relevance to consumers and the changing marketplace. Successful rebranding projects can yield a brand better off than before. Marketing develops the awareness and associations in the memory of customers so they know (and are reminded) of brands to serve their needs. Once in a lead position, it is marketing, consistent product or service quality, sensible pricing and effective distribution that will keep the brand ahead of the pack and provide value to its owners (Sinclair, 1999:15).[3]

Motivation

[edit]

Corporations often rebrand in order to respond to external and/or internal issues. Firms commonly have rebranding cycles in order to stay current with the times or set themselves ahead of the competition. Companies also utilize rebranding as an effective marketing tool to hide malpractices of the past, thereby shedding negative connotations that could potentially affect profitability.

Corporations such as Citigroup, AOL, American Express, and Goldman Sachs all utilize third-party vendors that specialize in brand strategy and the development of corporate identity. Companies invest valuable resources into rebranding and third-party vendors because it is a way to protect them from being blackballed by customers in a very competitive market. Dr. Roger Sinclair, a leading expert on brand valuation and brand equity practice worldwide stated, “A brand is a resource acquired by an enterprise that generates future economic benefits.”[4] Once a brand has negative connotations associated with it, it can only lead to decreased profitability and possibly complete corporate failure. [citation needed]

Differentiation from competitors

[edit]

Companies differentiate themselves from competitors by incorporating practices from changing their logo to going green. Differentiation from competitors is important in order to attract more customers and an effective way to draw in more desirable employees. The need to differentiate is especially prevalent in saturated markets such as the financial services industry.

Elimination of a negative image

[edit]

Organisations may rebrand intentionally to shed negative images of the past. Research suggests that "concern over external perceptions of the organisation and its activities" can function as a major driver in rebranding exercises.[5]

In a corporate context, managers can utilize rebranding as an effective marketing strategy to hide malpractices and avoid or shed negative connotations and decreased profitability. Corporations such as Philip Morris USA, Blackwater and AIG rebranded in order to shed negative images. Philip Morris USA rebranded its name and logo to Altria on January 27, 2003 due to the negative connotations associated with tobacco products that could have had potential to affect the profitability of other Philip Morris brands such as Kraft Foods.[6]

In 2008, AIG's image became damaged due to its need for a Federal bailout during the 2008 financial crisis. AIG was bailed out because the United States Treasury stated that AIG was too big to fail due to its size and complex relationships with financial counterparties.[6] AIG itself is a huge international firm; however, the AIG Retirement and AIG Financial subsidiaries were left with negative connotations due to the bailout. As a result, AIG Financial Advisors and AIG Retirement respectively rebranded into Sagepoint Financial and VALIC (Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company) to shed the negative image associated with AIG.[7]

Lost market share

[edit]

Brands often rebrand in reaction to losing market share. In these cases, the brands have become less meaningful to target audiences and, therefore, lost share to competitors.[citation needed]

In some cases, companies try to build on any perceived equity they believe still exists in their brand. Radio Shack, for example, rebranded itself as "the Shack" in 2008 but the rebranding never realized into an increase of market share in the retail industry.[8] By 2017, Radio Shack had significantly reduced its physical retail presence, closing over 1,000 stores and shifted to a primarily online retail business model.[9]

Emergent situations

[edit]

Rebranding may also occur unintentionally from emergent situations such as “Chapter 11 corporate restructuring,” or “bankruptcy.” Chapter 11 is rehabilitation or reorganization used primarily by business debtors. It’s more commonly known as corporate bankruptcy, which is a form of corporate financial reorganization that allows companies to function while they pay off their debt.[10] Companies such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, Washington Mutual and General Motors have all filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On July 1, 2009 General Motors filed for bankruptcy, which was fulfilled on July 10, 2009. General Motors decided to rebrand its entire structure by investing more in Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac automobiles. Furthermore, it decided to sell Saab Automobile and discontinue the Hummer, Pontiac, and Saturn brands. General Motors rebranded by stating they are reinventing and rebirthing the company as “The New GM” with “Fewer, stronger brands. Fewer, stronger models. Greater efficiencies, better fuel economy, and new technologies” as stated in their reinvention commercial. General Motors' reinvention commercial also stated that eliminating brands “isn’t about going out of business, but getting down to business.”

Product line

[edit]

Companies like Dunkin' Donuts, Joann Fabrics, and Weight Watchers, have removed or abbreviated parts of their company names to suggest a larger product line offering than what their names solely imply. It is also used to cater to different demographics who may be interested in different products of the same industry. In a 2018 marketing stunt, pancake restaurant chain IHOP announced a rebranding to "IHOb" to promote a line of hamburgers, but did not follow through with the rebranding.[11]

Staying relevant

[edit]

Companies can also choose to rebrand to remain relevant to its (new) customers and stakeholders. This could occur when a company's business has changed, for example its strategic direction and industry focus, or its brand no longer fits its (new) customer base. For example, a company might rebrand so that its name works in new market it enters, for reasons of culture or language, such as to make it easier to pronounce.

Rebranding is also a way to refresh an image to ensure its appeal to contemporary customers and stakeholders. What once looked fresh and relevant may no longer do so years later.

Products

[edit]
2020: King Arthur Flour rebrands as King Arthur Baking
Bread flour packaging before rebranding, featuring a Crusader-esque knight
All-purpose flour after rebranding; the knight (and Crosses even on crown) disappears.

As for product offerings, when they are marketed separately to several target markets this is called market segmentation. When part of a market segmentation strategy involves offering significantly different products in each market, this is called product differentiation. This market segmentation/product differentiation process can be thought of as a form of rebranding. What distinguishes it from other forms of rebranding is that the process does not entail the elimination of the original brand image. Rebranding in this manner allows one set of engineering and QA to be used to create multiple products with minimal modifications and additional expense. Another form of product rebranding is the sale of a product manufactured by another company under a new name: an original design manufacturer is a company that manufactures a product, often in a location with lower operating costs, which is eventually branded by another firm for sale.

Following a merger or acquisition, companies usually rebrand newly-acquired products to keep them consistent with an existing product line, such as Symantec placing acquired security and utility software under its Norton brand (itself an offshoot of flagship product Norton Antivirus). This can also happen in reverse if an acquired brand has wider recognition in the market than that of the purchaser, such as Chemical Bank taking on the Chase branding after its merger with the company.[12][13][14][15]

Small businesses

[edit]

Small businesses face different challenges from large corporations and must adapt their rebranding strategy accordingly. Rather than implementing change gradually, small businesses are sometimes better served by rebranding their image in a short timeframe – especially when existing brand notoriety is low. “The powerful first impression on new clients made possible by professional brand design often outweighs an outdated or poorly-designed image’s weak brand recognition to existing clients”.[16] A change of image in a large corporation can have costly repercussions (updating signage in multiple locations, large quantities of existing collateral, communicating with a large number of employees, etc.), while small businesses can enjoy more mobility and implement change more quickly. While small businesses can experience growth without necessarily having a professionally designed brand image, "rebranding becomes a critical step for a company to be considered seriously when expanding to more aggressive markets and facing competitors with more established brand images".[16][better source needed]

Impact

[edit]

The ubiquitous nature of a company/product brand across all customer touchpoints makes rebranding a heavy undertaking for companies. According to the iceberg model, 80% of the impact is hidden. The level of impact of changing a brand depends on the degree to which the brand is changed.

There are several elements of a brand that can be changed in a rebranding these include the name, the logo, the legal name, and the corporate identity (including visual identity and verbal identity). Changes made only to the company logo have the lowest impact (called a logo-swap), and changes made to the name, legal name, and other identity elements will touch every part of the company and can result in high costs and impact on large complex organizations.

Rebranding affects not only marketing material but also digital channels, URLs, signage, clothing, and correspondence.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Rebranding

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Rebranding is a in which an established or modifies core elements of its brand identity, such as its name, , visual design, messaging, or values, to reposition itself within the market, adapt to evolving goals, or address competitive pressures. This process typically arises from strategic necessities like mergers, expansions into new demographics, modernization of outdated imagery, or recovery from operational shifts, though it demands substantial in updating numerous assets—averaging 215 per rebrand—and spans about seven months from conception to implementation. Empirical analyses reveal mixed outcomes, with some corporate rebrands failing to yield statistically significant improvements in , perceived , or , underscoring the risks of disrupting established consumer associations. Common drivers include aligning the brand with contemporary consumer expectations or leveraging heritage for differentiation, yet rebranding can inadvertently erode if it severs ties to historical strengths without clear causal links to performance gains. For instance, in sports franchises, adopting parent-club names has shown no financial uplift for development teams, highlighting how superficial changes may neglect underlying revenue dynamics. Success hinges on maintaining continuity with prior equity while signaling evolution, as abrupt overhauls often provoke backlash from attached stakeholders, leading to sales declines or abandoned initiatives. Controversies frequently stem from perceived inauthenticity, such as when rebrands mask unresolved issues rather than resolving them through operational reforms, though data on long-term value creation remains context-specific and inconclusive across industries.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

Rebranding refers to the strategic overhaul of an established brand's identity elements, including its name, logo, visual design, messaging, or positioning, aimed at altering stakeholder perceptions and aligning with evolving organizational goals. This process typically involves creating or modifying symbols, terms, or combinations thereof to redefine the brand's market presence, distinct from initial brand creation which builds from scratch. At its core, rebranding encompasses both superficial updates, such as refreshing visual assets like color schemes or , and deeper transformations, such as revising the brand's promise, personality, or narrative to reflect internal shifts or external market dynamics. Empirical studies indicate that successful rebranding requires coherence across these elements to avoid diluting , with changes often implemented to signal adaptation rather than mere cosmetic alteration. For instance, corporate rebranding frequently targets attributes like and visuals while preserving underlying values, though radical shifts in name or mission can risk alienating loyal customers if not managed through targeted communication.

Types of Rebranding

Rebranding efforts are typically classified by their scope, strategic intent, and triggers, with common categories including brand refresh, repositioning, full overhaul, , and specialized forms such as digital or geographical rebranding. These distinctions arise from the degree of change to visual identity, messaging, and market positioning, as well as whether the effort responds to external pressures or anticipates future growth. Brand Refresh involves minor updates to visual elements like logos, colors, or while preserving the core identity and equity. This approach minimizes disruption and leverages existing customer loyalty, often employed when a seeks to modernize without alienating its base; for instance, a 2024 analysis notes that refreshes succeed when they signal evolution rather than reinvention, as seen in subtle tweaks by companies avoiding full identity shifts. Costs are lower, typically 10-20% of a full rebrand , due to limited rollout needs. Brand Repositioning focuses on altering perceptions through changes in messaging, , or market positioning, without necessarily overhauling visuals. It addresses competitive shifts or outdated associations, such as a pivoting from premium to accessible ; empirical studies of repositioning campaigns show success rates improve with data-driven audience research, yielding up to 15-25% lifts in when aligned with causal changes. This type is proactive, aiming to preempt decline rather than react to it. Full Rebrand or Overhaul entails a comprehensive transformation, including new names, logos, and strategic foundations, often after mergers or . Such efforts carry higher risks, with failure rates estimated at 20-30% due to customer confusion, but successes like total identity resets can boost by 10-20% through renewed differentiation. Reactive overhauls, triggered by scandals, prioritize damage control, whereas proactive ones align with long-term vision. Merger and Acquisition Rebranding integrates multiple entities under a unified identity, streamlining operations and signaling post-consolidation. This type often combines elements from legacy , with 2023 data indicating that unified rebrands post-merger enhance by 15% on average when executed with stakeholder buy-in. Specialized variants include geographical rebranding, adapting identities for new markets (e.g., cultural tweaks for expansion), and digital rebranding, emphasizing online presence amid growth, where 70% of modern rebrands incorporate digital audits per 2024 marketing reports. Cultural rebranding internally realigns values and to support external changes, reducing turnover by fostering coherence. These categories overlap, and selection depends on empirical assessment of health metrics like equity scores and competitor .

Historical Development

Origins and Early Instances

The deliberate practice of rebranding, involving the strategic overhaul of a company's name, visual identity, or messaging to align with expanded operations or market positioning, gained traction in the early amid the rise of large-scale corporations and professional advertising. Prior to this, businesses occasionally altered identifiers during mergers or expansions, but these were often rather than coordinated efforts informed by emerging theories. The shift reflected causal pressures from industrialization, including the need to differentiate in crowded markets and communicate technological advancements, as firms transitioned from descriptive naming conventions to more aspirational, scalable brands. A landmark early instance occurred on February 14, 1924, when the (CTR), formed in 1911 via merger to produce tabulating machines and office equipment, rebranded as (IBM) under president Sr. The rename emphasized global reach and a broadened focus on "business machines," supplanting CTR's functional but narrow descriptor to project innovation and scale amid post-World War I economic growth; Watson, drawing from his prior experience at National Cash Register, viewed the change as essential for unifying subsidiaries and enhancing market perception. This rebrand not only streamlined identity across international operations but also laid groundwork for IBM's dominance in , with sales rising from $9 million in 1924 to over $20 million by 1928. Preceding IBM, smaller-scale rebrands appeared in consumer products, such as the 1898 renaming of pharmacist Caleb Bradham's "Brad's Drink" tonic—launched in 1893—to , intended to evoke digestive aid (from "") while broadening appeal beyond a personal proprietor's mark. Though rudimentary, it demonstrated early use of name changes to target health-conscious consumers and facilitate distribution. Such cases, while less comprehensive than later corporate efforts, illustrate rebranding's roots in adapting to competitive and perceptual demands before formalized strategies proliferated in the .

Post-20th Century Evolution

The advent of the in the 1990s and its widespread adoption in the early fundamentally altered rebranding practices, shifting from static visual updates to dynamic, interactive strategies that prioritize consumer and adaptability. Traditional rebranding, often limited to refreshes or name changes during mergers, gave way to holistic transformations integrating digital platforms, where brands could respond in real time to feedback via and online . This evolution was driven by the need to maintain in fragmented markets, as evidenced by the proliferation of data-driven tools enabling precise segmentation and personalized messaging. By the 2010s, rebranding increasingly incorporated multichannel consistency, with companies redesigning not only corporate identities but also user experiences across websites, apps, and ecosystems to align with mobile-first consumption patterns. For instance, the rise of trends in logos—favoring simplicity over 3D effects—reflected broader shifts toward faster load times and scalability on digital devices, a change adopted by over 50 major brands between 2010 and 2020 to enhance cross-platform recognition. and accelerated merger activity further intensified this trend, with rebrands serving as tools for unifying diverse portfolios under cohesive narratives, often resulting in revenue uplifts; one analysis of post-2000 rebrands linked them to average sales increases of 20-30% in competitive sectors like and consumer goods. In the 2020s, rebranding has emphasized resilience against disruptions such as economic volatility and algorithmic changes on platforms like and Meta, incorporating AI analytics for predictive identity adjustments and messaging to address consumer demands for transparency. Literature reviews indicate a marked uptick in rebranding frequency, with organizations changing names, , or at rates 2-3 times higher than in the late , attributed to shorter brand life cycles amid digital saturation. This period also saw a pivot toward purpose-driven rebrands, where firms realign identities with ethical stances, though empirical outcomes vary, with successful cases demonstrating improved equity metrics like Net Promoter Scores rising by up to 15 points post-revamp.

Motivations for Rebranding

Market and Competitive Pressures

Companies initiate rebranding in response to intensifying market , where saturation and rival innovations erode distinctiveness, compelling firms to reposition for and growth. In mature industries, undifferentiated branding leads to , shifting toward price wars rather than perceived value, as new entrants or agile incumbents capture share through superior messaging or . For instance, re-positioning becomes necessary when customer preferences evolve or novel competitors established positions, prompting brands to refresh identities to signal and fend off erosion. Technological shifts and economic volatility amplify these pressures, as outdated visuals or associations fail to resonate with shifting demographics or digital-native consumers, necessitating rebrands to align with emergent channels like e-commerce or social media. Empirical examinations of corporate rebranding highlight weaker competitive positioning as a core driver, alongside external disruptions that diminish market standing. In the toy sector, LEGO confronted such dynamics in the early 2000s, with sales plummeting 30% in 2003 amid rivalry from video games and low-cost Asian manufacturers, prompting a multi-year rebranding from 2004 to 2010 that refocused on core interlocking bricks and creativity to reclaim leadership. Similarly, Apple, holding under 5% global PC market share by 1997 amid dominance by Microsoft-backed hardware, deployed the "Think Different" campaign to reassert innovation over conformity, streamlining its fragmented portfolio to counter commoditized rivals. These pressures often manifest in quantifiable declines, such as stagnation or share loss, where failure to rebrand risks irreversible against faster-adapting foes. on rebranding motives underscores competition's role in prompting equity transfers or creations to sustain performance in dynamic environments, though success hinges on authentic alignment rather than superficial tweaks.

Reputational Recovery

Reputational recovery motivates rebranding when organizations face severe damage to public perception from scandals, ethical violations, or operational failures that erode trust and . Such damage often manifests in declining prices, boycotts, or legal repercussions, prompting executives to view rebranding as a mechanism to signal internal reforms and sever ties with negative historical associations. The approach leverages psychological principles of fresh starts, where altered visual identity, messaging, or nomenclature aims to reset stakeholder expectations and rebuild equity, though empirical studies indicate it primarily bolsters perceptions rather than directly restoring . A prominent case occurred with following the loss of Flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, which vanished en route from to with 239 people aboard, and Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, shot down over killing all 298 on board. These events triggered a 40% drop in passenger traffic and widespread distrust, leading to a full rebrand to Malaysia Airlines Berhad on September 1, 2015, including a new and "MH2500: Creating Better Journeys" to symbolize renewal and operational overhaul. The initiative was driven by the need to dissociate from crisis-induced stigma, with management citing rebranding as essential for investor confidence amid a government bailout exceeding $1.4 billion USD. Domino's Pizza pursued reputational recovery after a January 2009 viral video exposed employees contaminating food, which amplified preexisting complaints about product quality and caused a 10-15% dip in affected markets. The company launched its "Pizza Turnaround" campaign on December 27, 2009, featuring a new , updated , and candid admitting past shortcomings, resulting in a 14.3% U.S. same-store increase in 2010. This reorientation was motivated by the imperative to reclaim market share from competitors like , demonstrating how rebranding addresses causal links between perceived quality failures and reputational erosion. Scholarly analyses underscore that while rebranding post-crisis can enhance brand metrics—such as improved Net Promoter Scores—its efficacy depends on authentic internal changes rather than superficial alterations, as superficial efforts risk exacerbating skepticism. For instance, a study of rebranding initiatives found positive rebuilding effects but no direct gains, attributing to executives' focus on short-term perceptual shifts amid competitive pressures. Critics, including some consumer behavior research, note that post-scandal rebrands may provoke greater consumer distancing if perceived as evasion rather than . Nonetheless, the persists due to observed correlations between identity overhauls and stabilized equity in high-profile recoveries.

Internal Strategic Shifts

Internal strategic shifts, such as leadership transitions, pivots, or organizational restructurings, often necessitate rebranding to realign the external identity with the company's evolved core operations and vision. These changes arise when internal decisions—driven by new executive priorities or adaptations to technological and operational realities—create a mismatch between the legacy and current strategic imperatives, risking confusion among stakeholders or diluted competitive positioning. Unlike external pressures like market competition, these shifts originate from deliberate internal realignments, such as expanding service offerings or separating business units, which require visual, nominal, and messaging updates to signal commitment to the new direction. A prominent example is 's 2001 rebranding from Consulting, following a 2000 victory that allowed independence from amid partnership disputes. The shift enabled to reposition as a global technology consulting leader, unencumbered by its former accounting ties, with the new name—derived from "accent on the future"—reflecting a strategic emphasis on innovation and client transformation; the rebrand was executed in 147 days across 147 countries, coinciding with its . Google's parent company restructuring to Alphabet Inc. in 2015 exemplifies an internal shift to a holding company model, separating its core search business from experimental ventures like self-driving cars and life sciences. This allowed diversified funding and accountability, with Google remaining the consumer-facing brand while Alphabet oversaw broader investments; the change addressed internal growth constraints under a single-entity structure, enabling focused management of moonshot projects without diluting the Google name's equity. Apple's 1997 rebrand under returning CEO further illustrates leadership-driven strategic pivots, simplifying the logo from a complex rainbow design to a monochromatic apple and launching the "Think Different" campaign to emphasize creativity over commoditized hardware. This aligned with an internal overhaul from near-bankruptcy to innovation-centric , pruning product lines and prioritizing design excellence, which restored internal morale and external perception as a premium technology innovator.

Rebranding Process

Planning and Analysis

The planning and analysis phase of rebranding constitutes the foundational stage, where organizations conduct systematic evaluations to diagnose health, identify misalignments with strategic goals, and forecast potential outcomes. This involves a audit to quantify current equity through metrics such as awareness levels, customer loyalty scores, and against competitors, often revealing gaps like declining or outdated positioning. For instance, firms assess historical performance data, including sales trends and rates, to determine if rebranding addresses causal factors like product rather than superficial changes. Empirical studies indicate that rigorous audits correlate with higher rebranding efficacy, as they mitigate risks of misallocated resources, with poorly audited rebrands showing up to 30% higher failure rates in sustaining post-launch equity. Market and competitive analysis follows, employing tools like Porter's Five Forces or to map external pressures, consumer preferences, and rival strategies. Organizations gather primary data via surveys and focus groups—targeting at least 500-1,000 respondents for statistical validity—and from industry reports to model demand elasticity and segment shifts. This step uncovers opportunities, such as untapped demographics or technological disruptions, while quantifying threats like brand dilution from mergers. Research from corporate rebranding cases demonstrates that data-driven competitor increases the likelihood of positive abnormal returns by 2-5% in the announcement window, underscoring causal links between analytical depth and . Internal analysis evaluates organizational alignment, including employee sentiment surveys and capability assessments to gauge readiness for change. This identifies cultural barriers or skill gaps that could undermine execution, with tools like SWOT frameworks prioritizing causal drivers over symptoms. Stakeholder mapping ensures buy-in from leadership and frontline staff, as internal resistance has empirically derailed 40% of rebrands lacking such preparation. Objectives are then formalized using , linking rebranding to measurable KPIs like revenue growth targets of 10-15% within 18 months, grounded in scenario modeling to test resilience against variables like economic downturns. Risk assessment integrates probabilistic modeling to weigh downsides, such as customer churn estimated at 5-20% post-rebrand, informed by historical benchmarks from comparable industries. Legal and IP reviews verify availability and compliance, preventing costly disputes that affect 15% of rebrands. Overall, this phase demands cross-functional teams and iterative feedback loops, with from successful cases showing that extended —typically 3-6 months—yields 20-30% better alignment between rebrand intent and realized value compared to rushed efforts.

Execution and Rollout

The execution and rollout phase of rebranding involves implementing the new brand identity across internal and external channels, ensuring consistency while minimizing disruption to operations. This stage typically follows and , focusing on practical deployment such as updating visual assets, digital platforms, and physical materials. Organizations often allocate 4-6 weeks for internal preparation before public launch to allow employee acclimation and testing. Internal rollout begins with comprehensive communication to employees, including rationale for changes, sessions on new guidelines, and alignment tools like updated signatures and visuals. This fosters buy-in and reduces resistance, as unaligned staff can undermine the rebrand through inconsistent application. Brand style guides, detailing usage, color palettes, and tone of voice, are distributed to enforce uniformity across departments. In multi-site organizations, phased —starting with and cascading to branches—helps manage like signage updates and transitions. External rollout entails a coordinated launch campaign, often timed for high periods such as product cycles or fiscal quarters, involving refreshed websites, , , and customer notifications. Tactics include teaser campaigns, press releases, and events to generate buzz, with digital assets prioritized for rapid deployment due to their . Consistency across touchpoints— from to retail displays—is critical, as discrepancies can erode trust; for instance, failing to synchronize supplier leads to mixed messaging. Post-launch, ongoing audits ensure adherence, with resources allocated for quick fixes to anomalies. Challenges in execution include resource strain and timing risks, where rushed rollouts amplify costs—estimated at 20-30% of total rebranding budgets for alone—or provoke backlash if perceived as inauthentic. Successful cases emphasize cross-functional teams for oversight, with metrics like surveys informing adjustments during rollout.

Measurement and Adjustment

Companies evaluate rebranding outcomes through a combination of quantitative and qualitative key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess alignment with strategic goals. Quantitative metrics include increases in measured via search volume lifts, website traffic, and engagement, often tracked using tools like . For instance, post-rebrand monitoring typically examines revenue growth, expansion, and customer acquisition costs, with successful campaigns showing 10-20% uplifts in these areas within the first year. Qualitative assessments rely on surveys gauging brand perception, recall, and equity, such as Net Promoter Scores (NPS) or from customer feedback, establishing baselines pre-rebrand and comparing post-implementation deltas. Adjustment phases involve iterative to refine elements like visual identity or messaging if initial metrics underperform. Firms conduct on marketing assets and pivot based on real-time analytics, such as tweaking or taglines if recognition stalls below 15-20% targets. from rebranding studies indicates that proactive adjustments, informed by ongoing KPI tracking, correlate with improved firm performance, including enhanced scores and reduced churn rates by up to 25% in responsive cases. Internal metrics, like surveys, further guide adjustments to ensure cultural alignment, preventing reputational disconnects observed in 30-40% of unmonitored rebrands. Long-term measurement extends beyond immediate post-launch to 12-24 month horizons, incorporating econometric models to isolate rebranding's causal impact amid external variables. highlights that brands employing multi-metric dashboards—integrating financial outcomes with perceptual data—achieve sustained equity gains, whereas reliance on singular indicators risks misattribution of success or failure. This rigorous approach underscores causal realism in attributing outcomes to rebranding efforts rather than market factors.

Case Studies

Successful Rebrands

Old Spice's 2010 rebranding campaign, titled "The Man Your Man Could Smell Like," shifted the brand from its association with older consumers to a humorous, youthful appeal through ads featuring actor . Launched in February 2010 by , the campaign generated over 40 million views in its first week and tripled while doubling body wash sales. By July 2010, Old Spice Red Zone body wash sales had risen 107% year-over-year, exceeding the initial goal of a 15% increase and capturing significant from competitors like Axe. Domino's Pizza executed a transparent rebrand in late 2009 via its "Pizza Turnaround" campaign, admitting in advertisements that its previous tasted subpar based on feedback and tests. The company reformulated its , cheese, and crust, investing $75 million in product development and . U.S. same-store surged 14.3% in 2010, contributing to overall revenue growth of 7.8% to $1.44 billion, while enterprise value increased by nearly $12 billion over the subsequent years through sustained innovation like the Pizza Tracker app, which boosted online orders by 23%. Burberry's repositioning in the early 2000s under CEO Rose Marie Bravo addressed dilution from counterfeiting and mass-market associations by emphasizing British heritage and exclusivity, including stricter licensing and a check-pattern redesign. From 1997 to 2006, annual sales grew from £460 million to over £1.3 billion, with operating profit margins expanding from negative territory to 20%, establishing it as a luxury benchmark before later challenges. These cases demonstrate that successful rebrands hinge on authentic product enhancements, culturally resonant messaging, and data-driven execution, often yielding double-digit sales gains within 12-18 months when aligned with core competencies rather than superficial changes. Empirical analysis from firms indicates such outcomes correlate with pre-rebrand , avoiding over-reliance on hype amid competitive pressures.

Failed Rebrands

The Gap's attempt to redesign its in 2010 exemplifies a rapid rebranding failure driven by inadequate consumer input. The company unveiled a new mark featuring a simple "Gap" text alongside a small, blue square, replacing the longstanding bold font within a white-rimmed that had symbolized the since 1986. Within hours, erupted with criticism labeling the update generic and disconnected from Gap's casual apparel heritage, generating over 14,000 parody logos and petitions demanding reversal. Gap executives admitted the change lacked focus groups or previews to gauge loyalty to the original, attributing the misstep to internal assumptions about modernization needs amid slumping sales post-2008 . The was scrapped after just six days, reverting to the prior design on October 11, 2010, at an estimated cost exceeding $100 million in development, production, and lost goodwill, though exact figures remain unconfirmed by the company. Tropicana Products faced similar backlash with its 2009 packaging overhaul for Pure Premium orange juice, investing $35 million in a redesign by agency Arnell Group to convey freshness through minimalist typography and abstract fruit illustrations, eliminating the iconic image of an orange with a straw. Consumers perceived the shift as diluting the product's premium, natural authenticity, leading to confusion on shelves where the new cartons blended with generic competitors. Sales plummeted 20% within two months, equating to $30 million in revenue loss, prompting Tropicana to restore the original packaging by March 2009 after fielding thousands of complaints via phone and email. The failure stemmed from overemphasizing abstract aesthetics over functional cues like the straw imagery, which empirical shelf tests later confirmed signaled unprocessed juice extraction to buyers. Coca-Cola's "New Coke" initiative in April 1985, while primarily a formula alteration, incorporated rebranding elements such as updated taste positioning to counter Pepsi's market gains, but ignited unprecedented consumer revolt. The sweeter recipe, tested in blind tastings favoring it over the original and Pepsi, ignored emotional attachments to the 99-year-old brand, resulting in over 4,000 protest letters to headquarters and boycott calls within weeks. Coca-Cola discontinued New Coke after 79 days on July 11, 1985, reintroducing the original as "Coca-Cola Classic," which surged sales 10% above prior levels by associating the fiasco with revived nostalgia. Internal analyses revealed overreliance on sensory data without accounting for cultural icon status, costing millions in reformulation and crisis management, though long-term equity strengthened.

Empirical Outcomes

Quantitative Success Metrics

Common quantitative metrics for assessing rebranding success include revenue growth, sales volume increases, expansion, customer acquisition rates, and (ROI), often benchmarked against pre-rebrand baselines or industry averages. Brand value indices, such as those from Interbrand or Kantar, quantify uplift in perceived equity, while digital metrics like traffic and track immediate post-rollout effects. These are typically measured over 6-24 months to capture short- and medium-term impacts, with ROI calculated as (net profit from rebrand - costs) / costs, incorporating attribution models to isolate rebranding's causal contribution from confounding factors like market conditions. In sector-specific studies, rebranded financial institutions achieved a 13.6% (CAGR) in assets from 2013-2023, outperforming the U.S. banking average of 7.4%, with qualitative surveys linking this to enhanced perception driving customer growth. Consistent branding elements post-rebrand correlate with up to 23% higher and 20% greater overall growth, per analyses of enterprise . However, only about 60% of rebrands yield positive ROI, underscoring the need for rigorous pre- and post-measurement to validate beyond .
Case StudyMetricPre-RebrandPost-RebrandSource
(2010 campaign-led rebrand)Body wash sales growthBaseline 2009+107% year-over-year by mid-2010; +125% within months
U.S. market share3% (pre-2010)6% (post-campaign)
Burberry (early 2000s repositioning)Revenue£1.5 billion (early period)£2.6 billion (+73% over 8 years)
(2014 Bélo logo rebrand, building on prior efforts)Annual bookings21,000 (2009 baseline)140,000 (+566% by 2010, sustained growth trajectory)
These examples illustrate direct attributions in reports, though external factors like spend must be controlled for accurate . price reactions provide another proxy; changes correlate with positive abnormal returns in 54% of cases, per event studies, but long-term value hinges on sustained operational alignment.

Broader Economic and Behavioral Impacts

Rebranding initiatives can influence firm-level economic outcomes through mechanisms such as altered investor perceptions and market positioning, though reveals inconsistent effects on financial performance. An analysis of joint-stock companies indicated a positive association between corporate rebranding strategies and subsequent financial metrics, including growth and profitability, particularly when rebrands align with strategic repositioning. However, methodologies applied to Portuguese firms demonstrated no significant positive impact on , with some rebranding announcements correlating to neutral or slightly negative reactions, suggesting that markets may interpret such changes as signals of underlying distress rather than renewal. These findings underscore that while rebranding may enhance and indirectly support long-term economic gains—such as through expanded —direct causal links to improved firm performance remain context-dependent and often modest, with high implementation costs averaging millions of dollars potentially offsetting benefits if execution falters. On the behavioral front, rebranding frequently disrupts established consumer associations, leading to short-term declines in loyalty and purchase intent as familiarity with prior branding erodes. examining rebranding's psychological effects found that abrupt changes can trigger consumer confusion or , reducing for the rebranded entity by up to 20% in preference tests unless mitigated by strong rebuilding efforts. reputation often mediates this dynamic, where successful rebrands transfer or create equity to foster renewed , but failures result in equity destruction, evidenced by drops in repeat purchase rates. Internally, rebranding influences employee by reshaping organizational identity, with studies documenting improved performance and commitment when internal branding aligns with the external shift, though misalignment can lead to morale dips and higher turnover. Broader market behaviors may shift as rebranding signals competitive realignments, potentially spurring or consolidation, but quantitative outcomes vary widely; for instance, analyses of rebranded private-label portfolios showed enhanced category strength and consumer uptake only when changes addressed perceptual weaknesses. Overall, while rebranding can catalyze adaptive behaviors in dynamic economies, its net behavioral impacts hinge on perceptual alignment, with empirical data cautioning against overreliance on such tactics amid risks of backlash or .

Criticisms and Risks

High Failure Rates and Costs

Rebranding efforts often yield high failure rates, with estimates indicating that 75 to 80 percent of initiatives fail to meet strategic objectives such as increased or customer loyalty. These figures derive primarily from analyses by consultancies reviewing case studies, though rigorous peer-reviewed longitudinal studies remain limited, potentially inflating perceptions due to toward publicized flops. Failures typically stem from misaligned stakeholder expectations, inadequate , or execution flaws, leading to diminished rather than enhancement. Financial costs compound these risks, encompassing direct outlays for creative development, legal fees, and rollout campaigns—often ranging from $50,000 to $1 million for mid-sized firms and tens of millions for global corporations—plus indirect losses from revenue dips and recovery efforts. For example, Gap's 2010 logo redesign, unveiled without prior testing, triggered backlash and was reversed within days, resulting in an estimated $100 million hit to brand value through forgone sales and remediation. Tropicana's 2009 packaging overhaul similarly provoked confusion over product authenticity, slashing sales by 20 percent in two months and necessitating a costly reversion amid millions in lost revenue. Broader economic fallout includes customer attrition, with poorly executed rebrands causing 20 to 40 percent base erosion, and up to 68 percent of affected firms failing to regain pre-rebrand market positions even after adjustments. Opportunity costs further escalate, as diverted resources delay innovation or competitive responses; Mastercard's 1960s-to-1990s "prism" logo iterations, for instance, incurred repeated multimillion-dollar expenses without proportional equity gains until later refinements. These patterns underscore rebranding's inherent volatility, where upfront investments—averaging 10 to 20 percent of annual budgets for larger entities—yield negative returns absent meticulous of brand-consumer dynamics.

Ideological and Cultural Backlash

Rebrands intended to align with evolving social norms, particularly those addressing perceived historical insensitivities or promoting inclusivity, have often triggered ideological opposition from consumers prioritizing or rejecting what they view as enforced progressive orthodoxy. In 2020, following widespread protests after George Floyd's death, several legacy food brands underwent changes to eliminate imagery critics labeled as stereotypical, prompting counter-reactions from those arguing the alterations erased benign traditions without substantiating claims of ongoing harm. For instance, Quaker Oats retired the logo, rooted in a 19th-century character but evolved into a symbol of for many, rebranding to in February 2021; descendants of women who portrayed the character expressed dismay over the lack of consultation, viewing it as a dismissal of family legacy. Similarly, Mars Inc. transformed Uncle Ben's rice to in September 2020, removing the eponymous Black porter image criticized for evoking subservience; opponents contended this reflected capitulation to unsubstantiated racial grievance narratives rather than market-driven need, with some consumers decrying the loss of recognizable, non-offensive branding. More overt ideological flashpoints arise when rebrands or repositioning efforts incorporate elements of or , alienating core demographics who interpret them as prioritizing activist agendas over product merit. Anheuser-Busch's April 2023 Bud Light partnership with transgender influencer , framed as a inclusivity push but perceived by many as endorsing contested theories, ignited a consumer predominantly from conservative-leaning patrons; U.S. plummeted 28% in the ensuing three months, with overall declines reaching 25% and the brand slipping to third in by mid-2024, costing the company an estimated $1.4 billion. This backlash underscored causal disconnects between corporate signaling and customer values, as empirical data showed sustained purchase aversion rather than transient protest. Even neutral-seeming updates can evoke cultural resistance if they signal abandonment of traditional aesthetics amid polarized climates. In August 2025, attempted a logo refresh to a minimalist text after 48 years, aiming for modernization but drawing swift condemnation from patrons who saw it as sterilizing the chain's evocation of rustic Americana; the company reverted within days, with CEO Julie Masino clarifying no ideological intent while acknowledging the brand's nostalgic core. Such episodes highlight how rebrands, when miscalibrated against entrenched consumer identities, amplify divides: progressive pressures from media and —often amplified by institutional biases toward social reform—clash with empirical market feedback favoring continuity and authenticity.

References

  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2022/04/12/rebranding-a-company-or-organization-when-why-and-how/
  2. https://www.salsify.com/glossary/rebranding-meaning
  3. https://www.bynder.com/en/press-media/2023-rebranding-study-reveals-new-data/
  4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2017.1413970
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235302846_Corporate_rebranding_Destroying_transferring_or_creating_brand_equity
  6. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=sm
  7. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1297241/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389624073_The_Impact_of_Rebranding_On_Consumer_Perception_and_Loyalty
  9. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=bb_etds
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296320302368
  11. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/161887/8/Corp_Rebranding_JBR_REF_versionpdf.pdf
  12. https://researchportal.hkr.se/files/82584581/The_Power_of_Change_A_study_of_How_Rebranding_Influences_Consumer_Attitudes.pdf
  13. http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sociology.20120205.01.html
  14. https://sterlingmarketinggroup.com/8-rebranding-types-for-companies-and-businesses/
  15. https://www.surveymonkey.com/market-research/resources/rebranding-strategies-for-business-success/
  16. https://www.smashbrand.com/articles/types-of-rebranding/
  17. https://www.canva.com/learn/rebranding/
  18. https://www.gemnote.com/blog/rebranding-strategy-guide-2020
  19. https://www.aef.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/landa_history_rev2.pdf
  20. https://www.ibm.com/history/ctr-and-ibm
  21. https://infostory.com/2011/02/14/this-day-in-information-watson-renames-ctr-as-ibm/
  22. https://www.discerningreaders.com/watson-sr-rebranding-ctr-company-to-ibm.html
  23. https://www.uschamber.com/co/start/startup/famous-businesses-that-changed-their-names
  24. https://hbr.org/2010/12/branding-in-the-digital-age-youre-spending-your-money-in-all-the-wrong-places
  25. https://limelightmarketing.com/blogs/the-evolution-of-logo-design/
  26. https://pony.studio/design-for-growth/successful-rebrands-in-business-history
  27. https://www.emerald.com/mip/article/doi/10.1108/MIP-06-2024-0443/1297338/Evolution-of-rebranding-a-structured-literature
  28. https://www.smashbrand.com/articles/rebranding-trends/
  29. https://jbrmr.com/cdn/article_file/2019-07-02-17-08-41-PM.pdf
  30. https://journalfirm.com/journal/23/download/The%2BImpact%2Bof%2BCorporate%2BRebranding%2Bon%2Bthe%2BFirm%25E2%2580%259Fs%2BMarket%2BValue.pdf
  31. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/07306
  32. https://www.creativepool.com/magazine/features/apples-revolutionary-branding-journey-pioneering-the-world-of-design-historymonth.29194
  33. https://www.cascade.app/studies/apple-strategy-study
  34. https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/14581/the-effect-of-rebranding-on-brand-loyalty-brand-reputation-as-mediator.pdf
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334487361_Does_Rebranding_As_Name_Change_Rebuild_Or_Destroy_Brand_Equity_Customer_Loyalty_And_Brand_Reputation_After_Brand_Crisis_The_Case_of_Malaysian_Airline_System_MAS
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365972474_The_Effect_of_Rebranding_on_Brand_Loyalty_Brand_Reputation_As_Mediator
  37. https://ronntorossian.com/successful-rebrand-after-a-product-recall/
  38. https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/10-reasons-for-corporate-rebranding/
  39. https://www.frontify.com/en/guide/rebranding
  40. https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/brand-launch-of-accenture
  41. https://fortune.com/2025/10/26/the-story-behind-accenture-name-arthur-andersen-25th-anniversary/
  42. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/business/meta-fb.html
  43. https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/2013/02/the-real-story-of-apples-think-different-campaign.html
  44. https://hbr.org/2021/12/4-elements-of-a-successful-brand-refresh
  45. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/4419
  46. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstreams/ded4d4e0-3431-43be-b665-20375721deec/download
  47. https://www.columnfivemedia.com/how-to-rollout-rebrand/
  48. https://designforce.co/blog/rebrand-rollout-tips/
  49. https://www.contentcamel.io/rebranding-how-to-streamline-the-internal-rollout-process/
  50. https://www.changeengine.com/articles/the-internal-comms-playbook-for-a-seamless-rebrand-rollout
  51. https://stratusunlimited.com/resources/blog/rebranding-rollout-navigating-a-multi-site-rebrand/
  52. https://pyxl.com/blog/rebranding-checklist-10-steps-to-a-successful-rebrand/
  53. https://www.walkersands.com/about/blog/rebranding-after-merger-and-acquisition/
  54. https://www.huddlecreative.com/blog/7-branding-rebranding-kpis-to-measure-your-success
  55. https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2019/12/measuring-the-success-of-a-rebrand/
  56. https://brandsbyovo.com/quantitative-research-ensuring-the-effectiveness-of-a-rebranding/
  57. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2024/12/13/your-rebranding-launch-not-the-finish-line-but-the-starting-point/
  58. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/04/23/the-art-of-rebranding-integrating-a-new-acquisition-into-a-brand/
  59. https://www.wk.com/work/old-spice-smell-like-a-man-man/
  60. https://www.youngurbanproject.com/old-spice-case-study/
  61. https://fuelvm.com/dominos-rebrand/
  62. https://aaronallen.com/blog/dominos-turnaround
  63. https://www.canny-creative.com/most-successful-rebrands-with-key-takeaways/
  64. https://www.smashbrand.com/articles/rebrand-case-studies/
  65. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11517129
  66. https://news.designrush.com/gap-logo-fail-branding-lessons
  67. https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2021/04/learnings-gap-logo-redesign-fail/
  68. https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2015/05/what-to-learn-from-tropicanas-packaging-redesign-failure/
  69. https://www.smashbrand.com/articles/tropicana-rebrand/
  70. https://www.history.com/articles/why-coca-cola-new-coke-flopped
  71. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/new-coke-the-most-memorable-marketing-blunder-ever
  72. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-23/new-coke-debuts-one-of-the-biggest-product-flops-in-history
  73. https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2025/02/new-coke/
  74. https://brandactive.com/rebranding-roi-and-brand-health-metrics/
  75. https://squibble.design/branding/how-to-measure-rebrand-success/
  76. https://www.xolvebranding.com/journal/brand-fuel-en/measuring-rebranding-roi-beyond-just-looks/
  77. https://www.brandly.com/blog/what-is-the-roi-of-rebranding/
  78. https://www.adrenalinex.com/blog/roi-of-rebranding/
  79. https://www.superside.com/blog/brand-refresh-examples
  80. https://www.blankboard.studio/originals/blog/brand-refresh-vs-rebrand-vs-website-redesign-cost-roi
  81. https://www.amraandelma.com/rebranding-campaign-statistics/
  82. https://www.kinesisinc.com/old-spice-guy-brings-107-increase-in-sales/
  83. https://copywritingcourse.com/blogs/411-rebrands-and-pivots/
  84. https://thebrandoutlaw.com/old-spice-rebrand/
  85. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patrick-chew-a44691118_rebranding-coaching-the-secret-growth-activity-7374456965894139905-4yds
  86. https://www.iwebnext.com/case-study/a-logo-that-redefined-belonging
  87. https://www.nielseniq.com/global/en/info/rebranding/
  88. https://fuelvm.com/cracker-barrel-and-the-impact-of-changing-company-logos-on-stock-prices/
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360355061_Does_It_Pay_to_Rebrand_The_Relationship_Between_Corporate_Rebranding_Strategies_and_Financial_Performance_of_Joint-Stock_Companies
  90. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/ijfirm/v1y2011i4p175.html
  91. https://www.boldcrest.com/diary/insights/research-insights-the-impact-of-rebranding-on-consumer-preference/
  92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022243720922853
  93. https://socialtargeter.com/blogs/from-failure-to-success-lessons-learned-from-case-studies-of-rebranding-failures
  94. https://cpluz.com/blog/why-80-of-businesses-fail-at-rebranding-learn-from-the-best/?srsltid=AfmBOoprdVbYd4GaZnEFrAcQeNuLVHOI_-XohANox9HgV_gVqpSChPLn
  95. https://medium.com/%40hibridium/rebranding-why-they-failed-and-at-what-cost-31704f3c2176
  96. https://elvtr.com/blog/five-examples-of-failed-rebranding-that-cost-companies-millions
  97. https://celerart.com/blog/failed-rebranding
  98. https://www.canny-creative.com/rebranding-failures-how-much-they-cost/
  99. https://www.ofspace.co/blog/rebranding-costs
  100. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/06/29/aunt-jemima-quaker-oats-rebrand
  101. https://www.eater.com/22450623/racist-brand-mascot-logo-changes-aunt-jemima-uncle-bens-land-o-lakes
  102. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/09/23/916012582/uncle-bens-changing-name-to-ben-s-original-after-criticism-of-racial-stereotypin
  103. https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
  104. https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2024/07/18/bud-light-boycott-effects-endure-brand-drops-to-third/
  105. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/business/bud-light-boycott-ab-inbev-sales
  106. https://foodinstitute.com/focus/1-year-later-bud-light-still-suffering-backlash-effects/
  107. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cracker-barrel-logo-rcna227389
  108. https://www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/cracker-barrel-ceo-rebrand-comments/507-ecb48393-c613-440b-923f-76605df87d4e
  109. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/30/cracker-barrel-backlash
  110. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/when-a-rebrand-meets-backlash
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.