While I was there, we discussed the recent rebrand of the Norwegian company, Statoil.

Statoil is an oil company with over 500 filling stations in Norway with more scattered all over Scandinavia.  Here is an image of one of their filling stations.

The company recently merged with Norsk Hydro and here is an image of the identity after its rebrand.

Though I don’t have the privilege of  knowing all of the internal reasons behind why the company did this, it begs the question: Who is this for? Consumers are very familiar and comfortable with the filling station identity, but the executives wanted to change it to better display the merger.

So again, who is this for?  The Executives or the Target Audience.

The answer is always the Target Audience. All too often rebrands are done at the pleasure of the leadership rather than a strategic decision with the customer in mind.  Not that a CEO should be ignored in the process, but most often the CEO is no where close to the Target Audience.

So what questions should be asked should you find yourself in this situation?  Here are three questions to get you started…

1. Do the companies offer the same value to the customer?

Sadly, I’ve seen several companies acquire another company who offered a complimentary service instead of the same one, however they roll up the brand name into the larger company.  This can result in confusion on the side of the customers of the smaller company which means that company is immediately worth less than the day it was purchased. For the sake of this blog post, we’ll assume for now that they do offer the same value…

2. Which is the stronger brand?

Do you keep one of the brand names or One of the company brands is likely to be stronger and therefore is the leading candidate for being the new one.  Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with revenue or which company has more cash on hand.  Customers don’t care about how much money you make or how much cash you have, only which brand means more.

3. Is there a new vision for company?

If the answer to this is yes, then a completely new name should be considered.  If you are going to stand for something different than what the two companies stood for prior to the merger, then a completely new name could be in order for casting vision both internally and externally.

When mergers happen, there is a lot of legal work about how the two companies will legally exist on paper, but don’t make the mistake of applying all of the same rules to the brand.  That’s a totally different animal and it needs to be handled completely and with just as much intention.

*shout out to our new intern, Kelly Carnes, for the blog graphic*

The answer to the question led me to realize you can have two types of focus, an industry niche or practicing discipline.

An industry niche focus is more of a traditional agency with the one-stop shop mentality, providing services across multiple categories, being pretty good at those crafts (a master of none) and well versed in a particular industry sector.

A practicing discipline focus is a more progressive model focusing on a specific craft and mastering it, then utilizing other master craftsman along the way to form super teams in order to accomplish the full spectrum of needed resources.

The industry niche says I know this market and how to re-purpose my problem solving skills with in it. Risking stifled innovation and differentiation this is a pretty safe option.

The practicing discipline says if you want the best in the world at my craft, regardless of your industry, come see me.

So our response to the inquiring board member? ‘If you want marketing experience in your industry then they are the ones for you, BUT if you want brand identity experts then hands down it is us.’

We are big fans of flags. They are the pinnacle symbol of pride for the people of a nation. It is a common bond among strangers. A flag represents spoils and strife, victory and valor, frustration and freedom, very similar to brand identity.

Back to the original question, What if Betsy Ross didn’t stitch the first profound symbol of a new world? What if The Continental Congress hadn’t realized it’s significance in 1777 and didn’t establish it as the official symbol representing the new republic? We would have no flag to fly over the island of Iwo Jima in victory, no flag to claim the first steps on the moon, no flag to cover the casket of JFK or Martin Luther King Jr., or no flag to reunite our people after 9/11. Our flag is everything great about this country, and without it we would loose a profound object of unity, pride, and freedom.

But why do so many companies miss out on this opportunity? Why do so many organizations have a poorly sewn flag? A company’s brand identity is an amazing opportunity to do everything a flag does. To rally. To unite. To inspire. Most places have an army of people craving a symbol to rally behind. It’s one reason Apple, Zappos, and Google are so successful. They each have a beautiful company culture flying under one flag, their logo. A logo is not a pretty piece of art, it is a rally cry.

Am I off on this? Is a company’s logo really equated to a country’s flag?

If the chief doesn’t see the need, if its not birthed out of change from the top down, if the CEO doesn’t have the ‘time’ for it, then a rebrand won’t be that successful. Branding is about discovering what is true about an organization and holding that up to the light. If those at the top aren’t highly involved in a rebrand process, there is little hope of getting to those visceral truths.

A rebrand is not about art, its about good business strategy – strategy on display. And whether we managers like it or not, that’s a call from the top.

This doesn’t make the process easy, but it will ensure a good and right solution.

Companies are no different. When revenues are down, they wanna figure out how to fix it quickly and easily.  Often a company will call for a rebranding to turn things around.  The problem with that is that the external brand is only a reflection of what exists internally, and more often than not that’s where many of the problems lie.

So if you’re company is struggling and needs a new way of presenting value to customers, just know that first you need to look internally and figure out how to change what you do to add more value.  Then go through the process of rebranding and reintroducing new and improved brand to the world.

Before you reintroduce yourself, make sure that:

1. Leadership is united in the new direction.

2. Your not just talking about new value, but you’ve made the appropriate changes internally to add that value to the customer.

3. All employees believe in the new value you’re adding and take ownership of making it happen.

At the end of the day, a good logo alone can’t fix a bad company.

Network Solutions, a long-time player (and a solid one at that) in the website hosting business, was recently rebranded.

Although I’d love to comment on some of my thoughts/confusion on their new logo, let’s keep away from the subjective and look solely at the objective strategy & positioning of their recent rebrand.

For starters, I can say one positive is their overall look and feel. While being a bit on the generic web 2.0 side, it does add a more sophisticated look to a web hosting company – something that stands out relative to their competitors.

Their redesigned site is also easier to navigate – another positive move.

But the biggest strategic shift may be the way they have both bundled and named their services. They’ve moved away from terms like “Domain Name“, “Ecommerce“, and even “Email” – and instead created a branding platform that adds their “ns” in front of each and every one of their service offerings.

• Rather than using an industry term like, “Domain“, they’ve opted for “nsWebAddress™”.
• Instead of “Email“, they’re calling it “nsMail™” (and if you want to upgrade to business class, its “nsMail™ Pro“).
• Instead of “Ecommerce“, its now “nsCommerceSpace™”.

Their formula: take an existing term that’s been used for years, modify it slightly, add an “ns” in front…and presto – you’ve got yourself a uniquely branded service!

Well, not really.

I’m not sure these names do anything at all, other than confuse and create more terminology to an already over-saturated web vernacular.

So let’s hear it…hit me back with your thoughts on their approach…

1. Don’t Rebrand when you just feel like a change.

Entrepreneurs are innovative people by nature.  Their ability to not accept the status quo is what drove them to start out of the box companies and build amazing businesses.  But sometimes once things are more established, that need to innovate and change can possibly be applied in the wrong places.  Change is a powerful thing, but never just for the sake of change.  I’ve personally had conversations with entrepreneurs who just get antsy and want something different.  The problem here is that your customers are becoming very comfortable with your company, they recognize the brand identity, and it makes them feel safe and comfortable.

You shouldn’t have Rebranded example #1: Tropicana

A great example of this is the whole Tropicana debacle earlier this year.  The “straw in the orange” has always been a staple of the Tropicana brand, and it’s what everyone looks for when wanting great orange juice.  But for some crazy reason, someone decided after 24 years, they should get a new look to their packaging.  Now, in this NY Times article, it is being related to the disaster that was New Coke.  But Tropicana fans have gotten their way and Tropicana has gone back to the loved straw in the orange design. (thanks to Aaron Lake for sending me this example)

You shouldn’t have Rebranded example #2: IKEA

Another example I just this morning read on another blog I often read, idsgn.com.  Here is the entry I read that shows how IKEA, unexplainably (to me as a loyal customer) after 50 years changed their main font from Futura to Verdana.  As silly as it sounds to say, I find comfort in those little price cards with that very recognizable Futura, or to me IKEA, font.  Now, those catalog spreads look more like Office Depot than IKEA.  I hate the change.  It makes me uncomfortable.  I’m sure someone had the thought, “Hey, after 50 years we should change this.”  That sentence makes perfect sense, except for the fact that this customer doesn’t want change, he wants IKEA.

What do you think?  Can you think of any other examples?

I recently read this interview with Rick Klotz, owner/designer of the apparel brand Freshjive.  It’s a really interesting read in which Rick explains his growing distaste with the concept of branding and how he’s decided to not use any logos on any of his new products.  He’s not sure what the outcome will mean, but he’s following his heart with this move.

I would like to make an argument that he still has a brand, he’s just changed his brand strategy and let the visual identity flow out of that strategy.  It’s not possible to not have a brand, but you may base your brand on having little “logo” value, which is fine.

What I love most about what he’s done is that he has built his brand to be authentic to who he is on the inside.  Anytime brands try to be something that they aren’t, they lose the power of great communication.

What do you think?  Is it possible to have no brand at all?  Or is this just a “no-brand” brand strategy?

Thanks to my good friend and old co-worker, Mike Scully, for making me aware of this.

• Is Pepsi better at “staying with the times” while coke is stubborn?

• Did Coke just happen to get it right the first time while it’s taken Pepsi over 100 years to get the right logo?

• Or are both just different, yet equally strong strategies that fit two different organizations?

What do you think?