Jump to content

Cost of a rebrand


dahlelama

Recommended Posts

Each spring several stories come up about Utah dropping their Drum and Feather logo or dropping the Utes name. Utah today signed a new agreement with the Ute tribe to keep the name. I guess it was said that it would cost Utah 100 Million to rebrand. That seemed CRAZY to me. (See http://hoyosrevenge.com/2014/04/15/utah-utes-athletics-new-agreement-ute-mascot/)

What does it normally cost a team to rebrand? Does anyone know the costs involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, it all depends on how much detail a team/school wants to get into as far as research/surveys etc. Some schools just go with whatever new unis Nike/Adidas/Under Armour come out with every year or so, cost is maybe a couple thousand.

And actually it isn;t going to cost ANYTHING, it ALL gets written off as a business expense so in actuality the team makes money off of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, it all depends on how much detail a team/school wants to get into as far as research/surveys etc. Some schools just go with whatever new unis Nike/Adidas/Under Armour come out with every year or so, cost is maybe a couple thousand.

And actually it isn;t going to cost ANYTHING, it ALL gets written off as a business expense so in actuality the team makes money off of it.

Uniforms is a single grain of sand in an hourglass of changes that would take place if a university had to rebrand completely including the name.

From signage, to scoreboards, to promotional material, all the way down to the business cards have to be replaced. It's a huge task that many companies do in phases over a period of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that 100 million number is WAY off. I could go point by point on the things the author thinks ring up that total, but it's not worth it. Suffice it to say, even if the drum and feather and Ute name hadn't been expunged for the most part in '96, there's still no way it would cost the university 100 million to change.

jazzsig4

I HATE THIS TIMELINE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to realize these schools have large advertising and marketing budgets to begin with, so some of the costs are blended in with that.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you'd better be running." - Unknown | 🌐 Check out my articles on jerseys at Bacon Sports 🔗
spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a smaller scale, Houston Independent School District announced the new mascot names for 2 high schools and 2 middle schools and estimated the rebranding cost at $250,000

Lamar Redskins -> Lamar Texans

Westbury Rebels -> Westbury Huskies

Welch Warriors -> Welch Wolf Pack

Hamilton Indians -> Hamilton Huskies

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/New-HISD-mascots-Huskies-Wolf-Pack-Texans-5403772.php?cmpid=hpts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terms brand and rebrand get thrown around here so loosely it's difficult to keep track. There are definite degrees of rebranding so let's try to define some types based on some broad industry standards:

  1. Full Rebrand/Relaunch: Completely new identity, name, logo, trademarks, colors. Typically requires extensive R&D, Full identity redesign with new logos and associated marks, extensive replacement of previous brand which is costly, typically a massive marketing campaign with considerable spend is required to get the new message out.
  2. Typical Rebrand: New visual identity and marketing campaign. Can usually be phased in strategically. R&D is done to refresh an established brand and a new identity is typically developed that's an evolutionary step. New and old marks can coexist for some time together.
  3. Partial Rebrand/Refresh: Updating or modernizing of current marks, message typically remains the same. Most resources spent on designing new marks and they are typically phased in.

From what it sound like a $100+ million figure is typically reserved for the fortune 100 companies that want to completely and aggressively change their identity and have thousands of examples of their brand in the marketplace via products, equipment etc. In this Utah example I'd have to think it would fall under #2 and the cost would be somewhere between the $10-20 mil mark depending on how aggressive they wanted to be if they dropped the Ute moniker. Keep in mind this is all from professional experience on the finance and production end and not as a designer or agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it costs, the "don't change it because it'll cost too much"-side conveniently ignores the fact that the university/team gets to sell all new stuff. If the Utah Utes became the Utah Wildcats tomorrow, everyone's old gear is obsolete. I know no one "makes" you buy new merchandise, but there is a reason teams sell a ton of merchandise when they change their look: people want to be current. If they can afford it, they'll buy the new stuff unless they have some belligerent opposition to the change (which I imagine some alums of Utah would in this scenario).

Go Astros!

Go Texans!

Go Rockets!

Go Javelinas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it costs, the "don't change it because it'll cost too much"-side conveniently ignores the fact that the university/team gets to sell all new stuff. If the Utah Utes became the Utah Wildcats tomorrow, everyone's old gear is obsolete. I know no one "makes" you buy new merchandise, but there is a reason teams sell a ton of merchandise when they change their look: people want to be current. If they can afford it, they'll buy the new stuff unless they have some belligerent opposition to the change (which I imagine some alums of Utah would in this scenario).

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you want to look at at the overall success as a re-brand you have to take the incremental sales and revenue (if any) then deduct the sunk costs of the rebrand. If you're in the positive, the rebrand made sense. If your number is negative you lost money on your efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, it all depends on how much detail a team/school wants to get into as far as research/surveys etc. Some schools just go with whatever new unis Nike/Adidas/Under Armour come out with every year or so, cost is maybe a couple thousand.

And actually it isn;t going to cost ANYTHING, it ALL gets written off as a business expense so in actuality the team makes money off of it.

That is not true at all. While yes, they will get to write off the vast majority of these expenses, they most likely won't get to write off 100% because Uncle Sam wants at least a piece of the action. Plus, all these costs wouldn't necessarily take place in the same fiscal year, so you wouldn't be able to write them off all together. And even if they do write off 100%, they are still paying a huge amount of money up front that they need to plan for, plus long term expenses associated with the new brand. And depending on their income, the write off could only put a dent in their tax liability. At the very best, you would nullify your tax liability, which would save you money but you still wouldn't make money off of simply writing expenses off. The way they'd make money is by selling merchandise, and getting more people to buy tickets/enroll in classes because the new brand is more appealing. All of which are very high risks to take, because even with substantial R&D you never really know how people will react (see Gap).

With things like this you have to forecast ahead multiple years (sometimes decades), and see if the projected cash flows from a new brand will lead to a return that is higher than the initial cost. And projecting merchandise sales is a very risky endeavor, because you are never right on the nose with the projections. Breaking even doesn't do anybody any good in these scenarios.

$100 Million seems high, but if you think about all the resources that a University has their logo on (Buildings, brochures, business cards, letterheads, signage, stadiums, murals, commercials, billboards, websites, and the list goes on and on), it seems like a safe projection in regards to budget planning.

jNTsTyQ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article on the University of Wyoming changing from brown and yellow to brown and "prairie" gold in 1999. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/here-s-to-you-brown-and-gold/article_9257fb86-4428-5242-a96f-4824c44b7e97.html It mentions that it cost the University $50,000... so figure double that figure for today... maybe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it costs, the "don't change it because it'll cost too much"-side conveniently ignores the fact that the university/team gets to sell all new stuff. If the Utah Utes became the Utah Wildcats tomorrow, everyone's old gear is obsolete. I know no one "makes" you buy new merchandise, but there is a reason teams sell a ton of merchandise when they change their look: people want to be current. If they can afford it, they'll buy the new stuff unless they have some belligerent opposition to the change (which I imagine some alums of Utah would in this scenario).

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you want to look at at the overall success as a re-brand you have to take the incremental sales and revenue (if any) then deduct the sunk costs of the rebrand. If you're in the positive, the rebrand made sense. If your number is negative you lost money on your efforts.

I didn't mean to imply it was all-or-nothing. I'd agree with you on the labeling of a rebrand as a success or failure. But my point is that the other side, the side saying "It's too expensive, don't do it!", they are the ones who are closer to the all-or-nothing worldview. I'm not saying everyone should rebrand. I'm saying if you have to do it, look at the positive side, and not just the negative side.

Go Astros!

Go Texans!

Go Rockets!

Go Javelinas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it costs, the "don't change it because it'll cost too much"-side conveniently ignores the fact that the university/team gets to sell all new stuff. If the Utah Utes became the Utah Wildcats tomorrow, everyone's old gear is obsolete. I know no one "makes" you buy new merchandise, but there is a reason teams sell a ton of merchandise when they change their look: people want to be current. If they can afford it, they'll buy the new stuff unless they have some belligerent opposition to the change (which I imagine some alums of Utah would in this scenario).

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you want to look at at the overall success as a re-brand you have to take the incremental sales and revenue (if any) then deduct the sunk costs of the rebrand. If you're in the positive, the rebrand made sense. If your number is negative you lost money on your efforts.

I didn't mean to imply it was all-or-nothing. I'd agree with you on the labeling of a rebrand as a success or failure. But my point is that the other side, the side saying "It's too expensive, don't do it!", they are the ones who are closer to the all-or-nothing worldview. I'm not saying everyone should rebrand. I'm saying if you have to do it, look at the positive side, and not just the negative side.

Well it looks like we are in agreement then. Rebranding definitely can make sense especially if a brand is effectively stale or eroding in terms of value or declining sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish people knew what went in to a full rebrand. $25k on a color change is not a rebrand. It's a drop in the bucket.

From end-to-end, I wouldn't be shocked if Utah spent that much on a total rebrand (new mascot, colors, design elements, etc.). You have to think about everywhere the old logo is currently, and then replace it. It's not a "let's pick a weekend and get it done" type of project. There's a bevy of R&D that goes into a new brand, which can get quite expensive. Then there's the production and implementation piece of it, which might seem simple to those that aren't familiar with the signage/print/production industries, but there's a lot of cost that goes into that, as well. If we're talking a full sweep of the old brand, $10 million wouldn't be all that hard to hit. It'd probably take a dedicated year to do a bulk of the work, probably longer.

The big decision with all of these rebrands (full or partial) that teams have been doing is comparing the cost/benefit. ASU's brand, for instance, was getting a little stale locally. Since that rebrand, I've noticed a large, sudden growth in the amount of apparel I see in public with their new brand on it. Not sure what it cost the school/Nike, but I guarantee you the spike in awareness was worth more than the cost of the campaign. Really, it's just smart business. If Utah saw the same kind of benefit (increased sales, admissions, etc.), it wouldn't be all that tough to justify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghost edit: I wouldn't doubt the majority of the costs probably come from all the time and effort spent on research and development.

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

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.