Changing a Brand: Usually a Very Bad Idea

This blog entry is about the foolhardiness of deciding you need to fundamentally change the identity of a strong brand. By "strong" I mean a brand that has managed to stand for something distinctive and unique, even if that "something" may be polarizing or limiting in some way.

The bogus logic behind deciding to change strong brands usually goes something like this.

* "The Brand is strong but we need to broaden it in order to capture new markets/new customers that are not part of the brand's audience today." This is the GREED reason.
* "The Brand has new competitors that are more broadly positioned and those competitors are growing faster than we are. We need to respond." This is the FEAR reason.
* "The Brand is not relevant to enough people today. What was OK once is not OK now." This is the COP OUT reason.

First of all, if you're fortunate enough to be managing a strong brand, give thanks to the Career Gods. Strong brands are rare as diamonds and just as valuable. If you inherent one, your job is to nurture and protect it. Your job is definitely NOT to change it. The change agents will be everywhere. Your job is to fight them off. Why? Because the absolutely hardest thing to do in marketing is to change someone's mind. If I think "X" and you try to convince me of "Y", good luck to you. Maybe a friend or someone I really trust and respect MIGHT be able to get me to change my mind. But doing it with an ad or some other marketing tool? Not a chance.

Let's say the strong brand you're managing has acquired its identity over 20, 30 or maybe even 50 or 100 years. That's a lot of accumulated marketing that you're now going to try to "change." The only way you're going to be successful is if your company is prepared to keep with the "change" program for the next 10 or 20 years.

The most likely outcome in these situations is that you muddle your brand's previously precise and strong identity, begin to confuse and alienate your brand loyalists, waste a lot of money and time, and (more than likely) experience worsening business results followed by unemployment.

There is almost NEVER a good reason to change a strong brand in any fundamental way. The GREED and FEAR reasons are both lazy marketing solutions to the need to introduce a new brand or brands designed to broaden your company's overall business. The COP OUT reason is really just an acknowledgment that your recent marketing of your strong brand has probably sucked.

Here are two examples of brands that have been working hard at changing; Mercedes Benz and Gold's Gym. I content that both are worse off now than before.

Mercedes fell prey to the GREED reason. They extended the brand into lower priced cars to broaden it and increase its overall market share. The result? Lexus has surpassed Mercedes in both perceived and ACTUAL quality.

Gold's Gym fell prey to GREED, FEAR and COP OUT reasons. New competitors had more all-family and female appeal than the hardcore serious fitness image that Gold's Gym owned. Rather than respond with a new brand, they decided to change Gold's, even going so far as considering dropping the "Gym" from its name. The result? An increasingly muddled image and a me-too fitness club experience.

The only success that I can think of is Cadillac. GM had successfully changed the brand's image by making fundamental changes in the Cadillac products, in its target market and in its marketing AND, it has taken years and lots and lots of money. This is the exception that proves the rule.

If you've got the money and the will and the time (and the product news) to be like Cadillac, go for it! If not, resist the urge to change. Make the most of what you've got. If you need more, create and build new brands that get the job done. Don't wreck the good thing that you already have.