Yesterday when the Brand New blog posted this rebrand of the Carolina Panthers, I was instantly excited to mix my two favorite things: NFL Football and Branding. The Panthers rebrand was a simple evolutionary update to the icon and revolutionary change to the type.  I was personally happy to say goodbye to the font that seemed like it was trying way to hard to be edgy and trendy in 1995 when the Panthers entered the NFL.

Within the NFL, there are teams that change and there are teams that stay the same.  For instance, the Chicago Bears have had virtually the same uniform since the 50s.  The 49ers tried to update their uniforms in the 90s with an awful drop shadow, then  in 2009 reverted back to their classic 80s uniforms.

The more I thought about it and processed it with some co-workers, the question arose, Should an organization's brand identity be made timeless or is it okay to change every decade or two with the trends of the day?

First, forgive my cliche fire innuendos, but I'm excited.

It has been quite a year. A new office, new team members, and finally — some new materials. We've had a new brand identity in the works for sometime now (reminded of the old saying “The cobblers kids don't have any shoes”). It started in fact last January when we decided to leave the Matchstic house behind and relocate to the Jane. We wanted to set the right perceptions for our own brand and felt the house just was not up to par with who we'd become. With a new office came a new matchstic once that again wasn't properly represented in our logo type. We needed a change.

Like all rebrands, we have two choices, evolutionary or revolutionary, when considering a change. We love our flame and wouldn't lose it for the world, but other outdated and uninspired elements were up for grabs.

We started with an update to the Matchstic wordmark. Running on over five years of use, the old type and banner was beginning to show its age. Not to mention the old banner had the by-line “Branding + Design”, a moniker found nowhere else since switching to “A Brand Identity House” in 2008.

For inspiration on a typeface we looked at our giant, metal found letters that hang by the front door. “Matchstic” is spelled out from a group of mismatched fonts, with a letter “t” that stood out with interesting character details. We used these characteristics to customize a new wordmark, simple with a subtle hint of personality, but better yet with a significant story to tell. Another slight tweak was evolving from a lowercase character setting to a title case. Even though our sign is all lower case we felt the new word mark held a stronger presence with a capital “M”.

After the word mark was complete and paired with our flame we moved into new collateral on a “doing retreat” back in October. We simply created, experimented, and had fun for a day. We came away with an idea of creating a system of standardized tools (like stamps) that ensure a consistent look and feel, but could be applied in infinitely unique and flexible ways. The result of that idea is 30+ custom Matchstic stamps that can be applied in various ways on business cards, note cards, packaging, and any other printed material (including body art). Included in the set is every team members personal stamp with their contact information to applied to our business card shell. This allowed us to letterpress two versions of really high-end cards for a fraction of the normal cost. The only catch is having to hand stamp all of your business cards (or have intern Patty do it). This stamp system allows us to have fun with our collateral. It allows us to make every piece unique. I no longer just send another thank you note, but I create one.

A few process images from our “doing retreat”:

Brainstorming Board

T-Shirt Comps

Some final products:

Blind Deboss – 2-ply 80# French Pop Tone glued to 279# Crane Pearl Kid Finish

Back Variations – "Start Fires" & "We ignite passionate brands"

Stamp Test Pad

Full Stamp Collection

Applied Stamp Set

Thank You Notes w/ "ch" blind deboss

Msc. Body Stamping

Gift Packaging & Set

Big thanks to Crayton-Heritage Letterpress in Charlotte for all their help.

By Jason Orme…

Maria Popova, of Brain Pickings fame, has taken on the task of branding the practice of regifting. She is giving away "free tools to de-stigmatize" the age old art of repurposing last year's coasters and the like. Talk about a daunting perception gap to hurdle. She asks the wonderful question: "What if we could normalize regifting, remove the guilt that bedevils it, and bake it into the gift-giving process from the get-go as an open and beautiful expression of honesty?"

With daring transparency, this endeavor garners support from a green perspective. Most of us give and receive a lot of things we don't want, much less need. Could regifting then be seen as environmentally conscious?

What are the current perceptions of regifting? What would have to be done to transform these ideas? Does this design make you think differently about regifting?

When GAP announced their rebrand in '09, they noted the visual change was a move from "classic, American design to modern, sexy, cool".

Tropicana's redesign was said to be a "historic integrated-marketing and advertising campaign…designed to reinforce the brand and product attributes, rejuvenate the category and help consumers rediscover the health benefits they get from drinking America's iconic orange-juice brand [insert other business-sounding words here]."

And when British Airways decided to change their look as a part of their 60 million pound corporate re-branding,

"they decided to ditch the familiar Union Flag tail fins, in exchange for a number of multicultural designs that represented their passengers and their destinations in order to become ‘the undisputed leader in world travel'."

They called these the ‘world colours‘. Margaret Thatcher later referred to the new designs as "awful things".

For all three brands, consumers back-lashed in record timing and the brands went back to their original visual branding. None survived.

These are hard lessons, lessons few can afford to make. So what is at the heart of these missteps, and how do we avoid these during the change process?

First, a few points on where each may have gone wrong:

• Reason for change: In all three instances, no clear reason for change was mentioned when consumers cried foul. With little explanation, I believe the negativity grew like wildfire. Which leads me to a larger point – was the change simply done to create something ‘new' for the brand (for newness-sake)?
• Strategy behind the change: whether its GAP's ‘sexy, cool' comment, Tropicana's long and vague comments, or British Airway's broadening of their brand's focus, each had its roots in either shallow or misdirected strategy. None discussed amplifying the parts of their brand that were already strong.
• Reveal of the change: In each instance, the change came out suddenly and without much build. Anticipation, expectation of change, and outlining the need for change – all before the change takes place – can be powerful allies toward a successful rebrand.

If you're considering a rebrand, how do you navigate around these land mines? A few questions to ask along the way…

• Are you seeking to change, simply because you're bored of your current brand?
• Do you have a brand strategy that is deeply rooted in accurate consumer perceptions?
• Do you understand what aspects of your current brand may have equity, equity worth holding onto?
• What will happen if you don't rebrand?
• Can you explain the reason for change in simple words that anyone can understand?

At the end of the rebrand process, the newness will only last a day. But the impact – for good or for bad – will last for years to come.

Articles cited above: Ad Age | Mirror | PRL

Atlanta is the latest city to be inundated with the "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign, showing up on billboards and TV spots. The messages focus on everyday people with ‘normal' dreams and struggles. The campaign seems geared toward mainstreaming Mormonism.

Of course my mind immediately wondered about the timing – what with the GOP front runner being a Mormon.

But even with a June Gallup poll showing 22% of Americans stating that they would not vote for a Mormon candidate – the campaign officially has its roots elsewhere. Its a perception war they are fighting.

According to a recent article by USA Today:

"Both campaigns came about after church research showed that about half of all Americans say they have never met a Mormon, and that many held misconceptions about church tenets."

The Mormon church is seeking to change that perception through a very non-traditional means – at least non-traditional for a religion.

Whether or not you like Romney or agree with the Mormon religious views, its certainly an interesting take on changing a religious conversation.

What do you think – effective approach?

Your brand is realized when you pick up the phone and speak. A perception is formed by the way your staff dresses. The way you just shook that client's hand. How quickly you respond to an email. How your customer thinks about you compared to your competitors. All of these things are your brand, and whether you like it or not, those perceptions are growing.

The question is, will you direct its growth?

Branding has real business impact. I love to hear other business owners we've worked with talk about the branding efforts we've done together. Kenji Kuramoto from AcuityCFO has a great story about a recent brand launch and how it impacted their business.

Last week I posted a blog that answered the question "When should a company rebrand?" from a philosophical point of view.  One commenter, C_Rocka, asked for some more actual rebrand scenarios. It was a great question that needed its own post.

A few things to note before I begin:

1. Whenever a company rebrands, it's very important to know whether you are launching into an evolutionary rebrand or a revolutionary rebrand.
2. Many scenarios that I mention here require a lot of work on the actual business model and operations of a company.  If those aren't done well, then the rebrand will not be effective. Putting lipstick on a pig is always a losing strategy.
3. If one of these scenarios exists in your company, it does not necessarily mean you need to rebrand. A rebrand is serious business and should not be executed unless you are confident in the reasons why.
4. All items in the list have come from actual client scenarios in which I've been involved.

Here is a list of possible scenarios for when a company should rebrand.

• When the vision and heartbeat of the company has been lost and needs to be refocused and revitalized.
• When you have such a bad reputation that you need a new way to introduce the company.
• When you need to tell the world that you are improving and moving into a new season as a business.
• When you are entering more global markets and need a mark that is more easily portable.
• When you are consolidating two or more brands into one.
• When you are splitting the company from one brand into two or more.
• When your core business has drastically changed.
• When you have created an entirely new product or service delivery model.
• When your target customer has drastically changed.
• When the personality of the brand has either been lost or has changed over time.
• When the vision for the company and corresponding business strategy drastically changes.
• When you have added to the brand little by little over the years and ultimately end up with inconsistency in names, colors, brandmarks and the need to be refocused.
• When you need to further distance your company from the competition.
• When customers are constantly confusing you with another company.
• When you have lost all relevance to your target audience.
• When the brand has been reduced to a mere set of benefits and needs to stand on a much larger philosophy and BIG IDEA.

What other scenarios have you seen or experienced?

The question that Brian posed is a great one:

• When is it really time to do a rebrand?

And the follow up statement though unfortunate, is all too common:

• I talk to so many people Rebranding yet few can say why

I'll start by addressing your second statement by emphatically stating that no organization should ever rebrand without knowing why. The first step in the rebranding process is to understand the problem you are trying to solve.  American inventor and social philosopher, Charles Kettering, said so eloquently:

“A problem well stated is a problem half solved.”

To answer your first question, there can be many reasons to rebrand.  Too many to list here. But what all reasons have in common is that who the organization is internally (culture, vision, values, etc) doesn't match with how the rest of the world views you.  A rebrand should always be a process that makes you more of who you truly are. In short: The outside should match the inside.

I posted a somewhat controversial blog on this topic a little over two years ago, read here for more thoughts.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine from college, who wishes to remain anonymous, works for Marathon and sent me this note:

Craig, the company I work for, Marathon Oil Company, is getting ready to split into two separate companies. It has been interesting given what I've learned about branding from reading the Matchstic blogs to see how a major oil company handles the rebranding process. I just got a sneak peek at the new Marathon logo. I'm pretty disappointed in it myself. Keep an eye out for it at the end of June. I'm not allowed to share it until then.

There must always be a business reason to update or change a brand's identity, so my first response was to understand what the reasoning behind the change.  Besides, the classic Marathon shield is very recognizable in my opinion.

Here is what the press release had to say:

Marathon Oil Corporation (NYSE: MRO) unveiled a new corporate logo today as it prepares to become an independent upstream company with the spin-off of its downstream business.

The Marathon hexagon shield, which was instituted in 1962 when the Company changed its name to Marathon, will be retained by Marathon Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: MPC) upon completion of the spin-off.

Apparently the new company is focused on oil refining and product distribution while the old company is focused on oil exploration and drilling.

So they have two different companies, both named Marathon, both working in big oil, just with a different focus within that arena.  So why do they have to be two brands?  It's very confusing.

My advice on their brand strategy would have been to either:

• Keep it all as one brand (which can still be two companies on paper) and build the company as a big oil brand.  OR
• Split the two companies into two brands with different names and different identities all together.

But the Marathon strategy is neither.  It's just sitting in the middle and causing confusion.

Rebranding is big business and the small decisions made in the process are crucial to the success of the initiative.

Side note: The tagline, Harnessing a Wave of Energy, makes me wanna take nap.