Reap Management Series (7) : The Orange Revolution: The Sense and the Senselessness in Re-branding

The Orange Revolution was a political event that once planted Ukraine in the consciousness of the world. But Nigerians, particularly those living in urban areas, also went through their orange moment when they woke up one morning, in the mid 2000, to see red everywhere. It took almost twenty-four hours to know where the oranges had come from. It was Guaranty Trust Bank in action; in a stage of corporate transformation generally known as re-branding.

Orange cemented GT Bank in the hearts of the Nigerian people but the GT story is beyond mere colours and symbols. The bank merely used the exercise to emphasise a statement that had already been made; a statement in excellent customer service and first class delivery. The GT example is a Harvard case study on how re-branding should be done. However, there are several re-branding exercises that are nothing but waste of shareholders’ funds. At best, such exercises are wrong priorities, at worst, they are corporate corruption at its peak. So much energy, time, money and drama and yet the consumers are asking: what was that all about? Re-branding is not a bad idea but it is a wrong step if is done without a clear philosophy. This is what happens in many cases of corporate re-branding. Listed below are some of the ways organisations get it wrong with re-branding and end up casting themselves as unserious when they should be improving their images:

Re-branding without a new message:

For many organisations, re-branding is about changing logos, symbols, colours and trademarks. Wrong idea! A change in brand is a change in drumbeats; it is a change in rhythms. Re-branding should come with a new message, a message that goes beyond theatrics and symbolism. At this point, the organisation is at a new inflection point. The narratives should be different and should have a new life. What concept of the business is changing? What new products are coming on board and which ones are being rested to reflect the new identity? Which markets are coming up and which ones are closing? Perception change is deepened when re-branding happens with a historical flavour.

Re-branding when still in a state of inefficiency:

Many organisations re-brand and keep services poor and products offerings dysfunction, in the hope that the change in logo and colour will just do the magic. A bank that recently re-branded still has an Internet banking service that is as lousy as what any lousy service can. Using re-branding to cover up for this kind of shortcoming is assuming that the customer is stupid and therefore can be taken for granted. Re-branding is more in the spirit than in the letter. Changing logo and symbol only works through the five sensory organs but does little to the sixth sense of the customer which is actually the sense that takes the decision. No re-branding pleases a customer than an efficient service.

Re-branding to cover up a scandal or to get people to forget a bad experience:

Some organisations see re-branding as a remedy for a bad image. The organisation has just gone through an experience that created a scar or a big wound. The wound needs to heal clearly and what does the organisation think about? Change the logo and the symbol. A logo does not change a lie. Regular communication on a fraud incident or regulatory penalty helps better than a change in colour.

Re-branding just for the sake of re-branding:

Some organisations just re-brand just for the same of re-branding. They think low patronage is due to low brand strength or visibility. So, they re-brand just to look new. This is ridiculous but it happens. Wearing a wig does not confer the skills of a lawyer on a buffoon; he has to acquire the skills and the certificate. Merely re-branding hardly makes a company an industry leader; it only works when efficiency, vision, service delivery and focus are in sync.

So, how best does re-branding work? For an organisation to get it right,

Re-branding must be accompanied with a strong message, represented in a new idea, product, concept, tangible achievement or purpose.

It should be preceded with efficiency-driven upgrades. Services and must products rebrand better than change in signage.

It should not be done immediately after a scandal. It sends a signal of dishonesty or an act to cover up.

It should not be a bandwagon thing; it shouldn’t just be for the sake of doing.