| name | brand-redesign |
| description | Use when deciding whether to refresh an existing brand, evolve vs overhaul a brandmark, redesign packaging, or rename a company or product — and when judging how much brand equity to preserve, whether a redesign is warranted, or how to justify the business case for change. |
Before and After: Redesigning an Existing Brand
Overview
Most branding work is not greenfield — the majority of initiatives are repositioning and
redesign of an existing brand. As organizations grow their purpose becomes more lucid, and
the creative team faces three crucial questions before touching anything. The governing
discipline: evolve deliberately — keep what carries equity, change what no longer serves the
brand, and always tie the change to a real business reason. "Change brings opportunity," but
only when the rationale is clear.
When to use
- Deciding whether an existing brandmark, packaging system, or name should change at all.
- Choosing between an evolutionary refresh and a revolutionary overhaul.
- Judging how much equity to protect (colors, symbols, letterforms, name recognition).
- Building the business case for a redesign to internal and external stakeholders.
- Considering a rename, a shortening, or a merger-driven identity change.
- Hand off to a fresh-identity skill when there is no existing equity to preserve — this
skill is about changing something that already exists.
The three crucial questions
Ask these before any redesign begins:
- What is the business imperative for the change? There must be a compelling reason
and clear business benefits — legal, market-based, or other. A strong case for change
lets everyone rise above emotional issues.
- What elements need to be maintained to preserve brand equity? Audit what carries
recognition and value; those are the elements a refresh keeps and modernizes.
- Should the change be evolutionary or revolutionary? Match the magnitude of change
to the business need — not to appetite for novelty.
Evolution vs revolution
| Evolutionary refresh | Revolutionary overhaul |
|---|
| What it does | Takes existing equity and modernizes it | Signals a fundamental reset or repositioning |
| Equity | Retains recognizable elements, updates the rest | Deliberately breaks with the old mark |
| Fit | Maturing company; keep the roots, match today | New vision, merger, or a name/perception problem |
| Book examples | Kodak returned to its "ubiquitous and beloved" K symbol; Swiffer retained equity while modernizing letterforms; Campbell's "carefully contemporized every detail" | A rename or repositioning that demands external reappraisal |
A refresh "can be a nice way to take existing brand equity but create something that better
matches the maturity of the company" (Hische); good evolution makes people "feel reassured —
'This is what [the brand] should be'" (Daniel Lee, Burberry).
Preserving equity
Equity lives in specific assets — protect them intentionally: core symbols (Kodak's K,
Starbucks' Siren, a domino) kept and freed or simplified, not discarded; signature colors
made pivotal to the redesign; letterforms modernized while retaining recognizable
character; and the name itself — nostalgia and trust, whose change is the most drastic,
equity-affecting move of all.
Packaging redesign
Same evolve-vs-overhaul logic at shelf. Recurring aims: simplify for retail while elevating;
respect visual heritage while adding new energy; make a portfolio easier to navigate at
shelf; introduce sustainability (recycled materials, refillable formats) as a visible story.
Ten principles for renaming
Renaming is more complicated than creating a new name — it affects established equity and
existing communications. Pasternak and Durbrow's principles:
- Be clear about why change is needed — a compelling reason and clear business benefits.
- Assess the impact of change — audit equity and communication assets first.
- Know what your choices are — evaluate real alternative name ideas, not the abstract.
- Know what you are trying to say before you name it — agree on the message first.
- Avoid trendy names — "hip"/"cool" names wear quickly.
- "Empty vessel names" require filling — meaningless names cost more to build (e.g.
Blue Origin) than names with inherent meaning (e.g. SpaceX).
- Avoid names that are too specific — geography/technology/trend can restrict growth.
- Understand that a new name can't do everything — pair it with taglines, design, and
communications, or it risks looking superficial.
- Ensure you can own it — check trademark offices, common-law usage, URLs, social
handles, and regional/cultural sensitivities; use an IP attorney.
- Transition with confidence — introduce the name inside a value-oriented story;
implement quickly, since two names in the market at once confuses everyone.
Effective shortening is a common, lighter move: YMCA → the Y, Flextronics → Flex,
Dunkin', FedEx, IBM. Renames also happen for mergers (Ciba Geigy + Sandoz → Novartis) and
to retire racist or controversial names (Washington Commanders, Cleveland Guardians, Pearl
Milling Company, Ben's Original).
Quick reference
Common mistakes
- No business case. Redesigning without a compelling, benefit-backed reason — change
driven by boredom, not imperative.
- Discarding equity. Overhauling when a refresh was called for; throwing away symbols,
colors, or letterforms customers value.
- Chasing trends. Trendy or "cool" names and marks that lose appeal quickly.
- Treating a rename as just a name. Announcing "we've changed our name" without
rethinking taglines, design, and communications — it falls flat and reads superficial.
- Skipping ownership checks. Not clearing trademark, URL, social, and cultural ground.
- A slow, two-name transition. Running old and new names at once, confusing internal
and external audiences.
Source: Wheeler & Meyerson, Designing Brand Identity (6th ed., Wiley 2024).
