Jump to content

"Rebrand vs "Redesign"


Recommended Posts

Rebrand: Changing a team's identity. Could be name, logo, or something major. Not something like colors unless it's a drastic departure from the previous identity. An example is the New York Islanders in 1995. From one identity to another.

 

Redesign: Changing the colors or uniforms, or slightly altering the logo. An example is the Colorado Avalanche in 2007. From one jersey to another, with the logo and identity mostly staying the same.

 

This debate is stupid. It ain't hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I kind of agree with the sentiment that "rebrand" should be reserved for major... rebrandings. i.e. a team moving to a new city, changing their nickname, etc. Something where there might actually require new trademarks and copyrights to be obtained. Whereas "redesign" is pretty much everything else. Changing up the primary logo, adjusting the uniform colors, etc. That's how I've always looked at it, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeus89725 said:

Rebrand: Changing a team's identity. Could be name, logo, or something major. Not something like colors unless it's a drastic departure from the previous identity. An example is the New York Islanders in 1995. From one identity to another.

 

Redesign: Changing the colors or uniforms, or slightly altering the logo. An example is the Colorado Avalanche in 2007. From one jersey to another, with the logo and identity mostly staying the same.

 

This debate is stupid. It ain't hard.

 

Agree completely. Also agree that the debate is stupid, but I'm the one who got so wrapped up in it (exam procrastinating will do that I guess).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Point1 said:
11 hours ago, Zeus89725 said:

This debate is stupid. It ain't hard.

 

...agree that the debate is stupid...

 

It is not a stupid debate.  It is a worthwhile discussion regarding a frequently bandied-about buzzword about whose meaning there exists fundamental disagreement, as the Paul Lukas piece demonstrates.

 

While I appreciate that the definition of the term "rebrand" is in flux (and even that some dictionaries list only the newer meaning), one cannot reasonably deny that the masses of English speakers consider the "brand" to be equivalent to the name, and so would interpret the term "rebrand" (a term which they themselves would probably not produce spontaneously) as "change of name".

 

If you have a preferred brand of ketchup or of laundry detergent or of anything else, you don't consider a change of packaging to have created a new brand.  Your preferred brand still exists, and you still buy it.

 

 

11 hours ago, Zeus89725 said:

An example is the New York Islanders in 1995. From one identity to another.

 

Now we have an additional claim, and one that is even weaker. 

 

The "identity" in this context is certainly the name; and the Islanders' identity did not change, because they remained identified as the Islanders.  By contrast, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim's identity changed when they rebranded to "Anaheim Ducks".  

 

As a leading philosopher once said: it ain't hard.

 

 

 

 

 

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It is not a stupid debate.  It is a worthwhile discussion regarding a frequently bandied-about buzzword about whose meaning there exists fundamental disagreement, as the Paul Lukas piece demonstrates.

 

While I appreciate that the definition of the term "rebrand" is in flux (and even that some dictionaries list only the newer meaning), one cannot reasonably deny that the masses of English speakers consider the "brand" to be equivalent to the name, and so would interpret the term "rebrand" (a term which they themselves would probably not produce spontaneously) as "change of name".

 

If you have a preferred brand of ketchup or of laundry detergent or of anything else, you don't consider a change of packaging to have created a new brand.  Your preferred brand still exists, and you still buy it.

 

I think Paul Lukas would be horrified that you keep bringing up consumer goods to support that point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I think Paul Lukas would be horrified that you keep bringing up consumer goods to support that point.  

 

No, he wouldn't.  The whole point of his article on the matter was that "rebranding" is a term from the field of corporate marketing.  So to use examples of consumer brands is appropriate.

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find interesting is that a bunch of sports enthusiasts have embraced ad agency and marketing jargon to discuss the topic of sports logos and uniforms. I find it even more interesting that there's a sizable portion of the same group that consider sports franchises to be more civic institutions than entertainment properties/toys for the ultra rich (packers being the only exception). It's been this way since the major pro leagues were formed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

But youre the one who equates sports teams with consumer goods, and insisting that the same language applies to both.

 

You can't decry the influence of ad agencies on sports and then use a cream cheese package to support your argument. :P

 

 

Hmm.  You are getting a few things twisted there.  I haven't decried the influence of ad agencies on sports.  The focus of Paul Lukas's criticism in the piece I cited is the seepage of corporate-speak into the everyday language.  Lukas asserts that there exists a set of people who see all of life as a forum in which business-related concepts apply, and that a symptom of this false belief is the attachment to (and the misuse of) the buzzword "rebranding".  I seconded this point.

 

But let us step back a moment and acknowledge that sports teams are commercial entities.  They are other things as well, as they cause emotional involvement on the part of many people; but they are also commercial entities.  Furthermore, sports teams are not the only commercial entities which inspire emotional attachments and loyalty.  Consider Coca-Cola, Harley-Davidson, and Apple.  

 

Now, someone could very well decide to denounce sports fandom as an indefensible submission to corporations; and I would have no good counter-argument to that, as I recognise that allegiance to a sports team, like allegiance to any other brand, has no rational basis.  Fans of a brand elect to construct fictions about what that brand represents, and then they respond to those fictions.  I am no less guilty of this irrational act than anyone else is.  The teams whose logos appear in my sig appeal to me because they have meanings related to cosmopolitanism and urban identity; but there's no way to deny that these are meanings that I have assigned to them.  So I am as much a sucker as anyone who waits on line for an Apple product.  But this act of imbuing the identity of a team or of any other brand with meaning is not what Lukas was addressing in the article of his that I quoted.  

 

Nor did Lukas have any critique of the mere idea that sports teams are brands.  I would expect that he and almost everyone else agree that teams are in fact brands.  So it is entirely appropriate to consider sports teams as equivalent to other consumer products or services, and to use brands of cream cheese or ketchup or laundry detergent as pertinent examples when discussing the brands of sports teams.

The topic here is the meaning of specific terms that are used in the discussion of these brands.
 

 

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I apologize for my misunderstanding and appreciate your clarification.  But we're back to this:

 

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The topic here is the meaning of specific terms that are used in the discussion of these brands.

 

 

Yes, it is.  And the literal dictionary definition of the term is not on your side.

 

Words are elastic.  Meaning changes over time.  Perhaps "rebrand" once meant what you'd like it to still mean today, but it doesn't.  Just as "decimate" went from meaning "eliminate 10%" to "most of", which still bothers the hell out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OP: No offense, but you aren't Paul Lukas' Sean Spicer though you should feel free to interpret what he says. It's like GIF (geef) vs. "JIF" (jeef). I don't even agree to disagree because I don't care. It's semantics and you can think and believe what you want, but that doesn't make other people wrong. This isn't a debate about facts. 

 

How do you feel about a company trying to become a luxury brand and rebrand to an upscale identity without changing the name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Perhaps "rebrand" once meant what you'd like it to still mean today, but it doesn't.  Just as "decimate" went from meaning "eliminate 10%" to "most of", which still bothers the hell out of me.

 

The meaning of "rebrand" is definitely threatening to change.  But the change is neither complete nor inevitable.  I would assert that the viewpoints of people who deal closely with the design industry are probably a bit skewed, and that these people perceive the change to be much farther along in the general language than it actually is.

 

On "decimate": I once saw a one-panel comic strip that showed nine Roman soldiers standing abreast and one lying dead on the ground.  One of the soldiers whispered to the soldier standing next to him: "Hey, this decimation thing is not so bad!"

 

 

5 hours ago, sayahh said:

@OP: No offense, but you aren't Paul Lukas' Sean Spicer though you should feel free to interpret what he says. It's like GIF (geef) vs. "JIF" (jeef). I don't even agree to disagree because I don't care. It's semantics and you can think and believe what you want, but that doesn't make other people wrong. This isn't a debate about facts. 

 

No, it isn't.  It's a debate about the meanings of English words.  A word changes its meaning when the community of speakers uses it in a different way.  But the point is that there is no consensus within the community on the word in question.  And every fluent speaker of English is competent to report on the matter.

(But the bit about "GIF" is a question of fact.  It's like "gift", with no T.)

 

5 hours ago, sayahh said:

How do you feel about a company trying to become a luxury brand and rebrand to an upscale identity without changing the name?

 

I'd say that the word for that sort of thing is "repositioning".  Marlboro was once a dainty women's brand, but was repositioned as rugged men's brand.  

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The meaning of "rebrand" is definitely threatening to change.  But the change is neither complete nor inevitable.

 

Yeah, it is.  

 

Dictionaries don't lead the way on a change, they merely reflect the change after it has already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 90s: What is the definition of "is"?

Now: What is the definition of "fact"?

 

But all kidding aside, I will agree with the GIF format's creator and respectfully agree to disagree with you. I have no preference when it comes to Twix, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'll be able to do any better than my "dictionary definition of rebrand" argument, but I'll bite on the consumer goods bit.  Here goes nothing:

 

I think this boils down to keeping in mind what "consume" means.  Consume can mean to literally eat, but in marketing, it really means to buy.  And when you consume cream cheese, you are also consuming its packaging.

 

And this might also help for my explanation:  brand - "a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name." (Cambridge Dictionary)

 

Let's take the example of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese.  And let's say they drastically change their image, marketing, logo, packaging, etc. but keep the same name.

 

Well, when I buy their product, I am buying the newly designed packaging along with the same old cream cheese with the same old name.  So even though I am not eating the packaging, I am still consuming it, in the sense that I bought it.  When you consume something that comes in a new package, you are buying the new package.  Since the brand is the product you are consuming, when you buy something that comes in a new package or with new logos, you are consuming a new brand, even if it has the same name, because it is now a different product (keep in mind that the new packaging is part of the product itself - you are paying for the new packaging along with the old cream cheese).  You might not be buying a new brand name, but you are buying a new brand, as the new packaging is part of the new product you are consuming.  Hence, you have consumed a rebranded product, even though it has the same name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this:  A Redesign is a type of Rebranding.

 

The Nationals went from Washington Nationals (2005 - 2010) to Washington Nationals (2011 - Pres)

 

it's a redesign visually as it's a change in the logo.  The overall corporate name and entity stayed the same.  it's a TYPE of rebrand, but not a drastic one that one usually associates with the term "rebrand"

 

the Red Sox went from Boston Red Sox (1976 - 2008)to Boston Red Sox (2009 - Pres)

this was a means to change their priority of the name, moving away from the roundel and to the hanging sox.  it's not a redesign as it was using an already existing element, but it's a REBRAND because it's altering the visual identity of how the team itself is portrayed

 

the Clippers went from Los Angeles Clippers (2011 - 2015) to Los Angeles Clippers (2016 - Pres)

I shudder still when I see this logo.  Anyways, this was a massive change both aesthetically and identity wise.  it's a MASSIVE Rebrand that includes a redesign of everything.  They wanted an identity that showed they have moved on from where they were. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I consider all three of those to be redesigns. Even if the Clippers was quite drastic, their legal identity and brand never changed, so to me, that still qualifies as "only" a redesign.

 

And completely off-topic, I feel I'm one of the few who really like what the Clippers redesigned into. At least their logo stopped looking like the cheap variant of the Lakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pharos04 said:

How about this:  A Redesign is a type of Rebranding.

 

The Nationals went from Washington Nationals (2005 - 2010) to Washington Nationals (2011 - Pres)

 

it's a redesign visually as it's a change in the logo.  The overall corporate name and entity stayed the same.  it's a TYPE of rebrand, but not a drastic one that one usually associates with the term "rebrand"

 

the Red Sox went from Boston Red Sox (1976 - 2008)to Boston Red Sox (2009 - Pres)

this was a means to change their priority of the name, moving away from the roundel and to the hanging sox.  it's not a redesign as it was using an already existing element, but it's a REBRAND because it's altering the visual identity of how the team itself is portrayed

 

the Clippers went from Los Angeles Clippers (2011 - 2015) to Los Angeles Clippers (2016 - Pres)

I shudder still when I see this logo.  Anyways, this was a massive change both aesthetically and identity wise.  it's a MASSIVE Rebrand that includes a redesign of everything.  They wanted an identity that showed they have moved on from where they were. 

 

No. No....and No.

  • same city
  • same colors
  • same name
  • same uniforms (if you want to nitpick fine)
  • logo continuity between new and old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'll throw my two cents in there..

 

Firstly, I've absolutely NEVER called it "philadelphia brand cream cheese", nor have I ever heard it.. Always just "philadelphia cream cheese" (you know, like the package actually says).. So, I'm not sure what made that such a great example, but it fell short..

 

Secondly, as stated, it seems you are conflating the terms "brand" and "name".. A name is simply a part of a brand, which is why you frequently hear the term "brand name".. The reason is because that is the name for that particular brand.. If the terms were interchangeable, people would just use the term "name" since it's the more common "everyday" term.. But they both hold value because they mean different things.. 

A brand is a perception or feeling, or sense of acknowledgment that surrounds a product.. It's a unifying set of expectations and consistencies commonly associated with a particular product.. I view it as a sort of ethereal or sublime intangible existence representative of a physical product.. An aspect of a brand is essentially a product's reputation.. 

 

If someone wants to change the reputation of their product, they need a new brand.. Not necessarily a new name, but a new identity.. The buccaneers are my quintessential example of this.. A franchise marred by futility completely rebranded and became immediate contenders, posting a record of .500 or better every year and making the playoffs in all but 1 season, leading up to a Super Bowl championship after only 6 years.. The teams logos, wordmarks, overall color scheme, visual appearance, uniform design, and even style of play and level of success all made a complete 180° at the same time.. That's about as "rebrand" as it gets..

 

Now, I'll also concede that there is a difference between rebrand and redesign, but I don't think size or magnitude really has as much to do with it as others have suggested.. The Miami Dolphins for example, have redesigned their uniforms.. They still feature an aqua dolphin on a coral (orange) sunburst, on a white helmet, with aqua jersey/white numbers/coral trim or white jersey/aqua numbers/coral trim, etc.. It's just a redesigned version of what already existed in several ways.. Aesthetically, I'd consider the dolphins a redesign (at least "on field", such as uniforms).. However, as people frequently point out that the logo evokes a cruise line or resort hotel feel, there are aspects of the organization that are clearly and markedly a "rebrand" (as confirmed by Brandon Moore, who made it clear that there was a big push to become a "luxury brand").. 

Other examples to me would be the Seahawks, Vikings, and more recent Buccaneers redesigns.. All were strictly uniform-based, and simply put a "new spin" on existing logos, colours, and design elements, without changing much about the public's perception of these franchises.. 

However, I would argue that the Rams going back to royal/yellow, even if they keep the same basic uniform design, that it would be a rebrand.. They're moving to a brand that's more in line with the warm, sunny LA weather and bright, vibrant LA/Hollywood scenery.. That's a very deliberate and conscious brand decision.. It's also shifting back to a more marketable brand in terms of fan support and retail opportunities, with the popularity of the throwback merchandise and historic colors.. It's a clear shift in brand identity..

 

I don't suppose any of this will sway anyone one way or the other, but I thought I'd share my opinions on the matter, and further hammer the point home that "brand" does not mean "name" in current or former vernacular.. Perhaps its recent rise in popularity and usage stems from the fact that more and more people are recognizing it as the most correct and accurate term to describe these things.. 

That doesn't mean it can't be misused or misappropriated, but it also doesn't mean that each use you disagree with is a misuse or misappropriation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.