Brand Refresh: Does It Work?

It’s interesting launching a couple of new brands, then to be involved with the repositioning -- or even the turning around -- of older brands, simultaneously. With new brands it's always about credibility. Who are the customers, is this legitimate, why should I care, is this a real marketplace need?

With the older brands it's tougher, especially when the previous marketing regime has been dormant. This leads to all sorts of additional issues, particularly when it comes to a perception of "just one of the pack" – as opposed to actual leadership. In these cases, it seems like you have to suddenly become a public innovator, claim leadership, and then demonstrate proof points (i.e. large, public deals with recognizable names). Proof’s in the pudding.

When you research brand refresh online, you usually end up with a new visual look. Here’s the thing, I'm all for that, but if it’s a new look and no market validation or substance behind the message, that means it’s going to fail. Plain and simple. Good marketing makes great products sell quicker, and bad products fail faster. If it’s bad, it’s bad, no matter how pretty it looks.

Case in point, check out the Autoblog’s write up of Fiat’s new look. Very shiny, but does the car still drop it’s transmission every 20,000 miles? Here are some more interesting prominent rebrands in the blogosphere of late: Perrier, and, of course the Democrats. OK, point made.

Another brag for this week: ABC hit was 8 minutes long! How sweet is that? Still pushing this week’s media campaign, the national media are starting to nibble. I hope the snowball takes off and turns the tide tomorrow.