底层开发崇拜
Back in January, Sony unveiled a new logomark for its upcoming console, the Playstation 5, at CES 2020. The reaction was underwhelming, with many criticising a supposed lack of creativity on the part of the designer. Games Radar led with the headline “
Sony reveals the official PS5 logo and literally nobody is surprised” while Screen Rant stated the logomark “ left much to be desired.” Social media users branded the company as lazy and unoriginal, while artist BossLogic created what some have suggested is a better concept and Game Rant called “ a more satisfying emblem.”
All of which speaks of widespread ignorance of how brands are built and maintained. Those lambasting Sony for not taking a risk with the Playstation 5 logomark have failed to grasp that the lead-in to releasing a new product upon which much depends on brand loyalty is the wrong time for change. Rather, the continuity seen in Playstation’s branding is a textbook example of maintaining brand recognition — a practice that has helped Sony dominate the console market for two decades.
For contrast consider Nintendo. After the Wii U failed to capture consumer imaginations, the gaming giant instigated a major shift from the branding standards developed for the Wii and Wii U to a new image that not only set the Switch apart but also filtered into all of Nintendo’s first-party games. Having struggled to keep pace with the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, Nintendo released a new console with a new name, a new look, and a tighter focus on their target market. The result: Nintendo has overtaken Microsoft in console sales.
What should become clear is how important timing is when it comes to managing a brand; how it requires treading a fine line between risk and reservation. For major brands like Sony and Nintendo, with multiple marketing teams across the world, the questions of when to rebrand and when to hold back are fairly easy to answer. But it’s not always so simple.
After all, success can often lead to complacency, as seen in 1985 when the Coca-Cola Company ignored the growing threat of Pepsi to its domination of the market. As their rivals claimed more and more of a market share, Coca-Cola rushed to make up for their losses by changing its signature product in one of the most famous marketing blunders in history.
If even international brands can slip-up, what then is the answer for smaller businesses? It’s not obvious. Many are slow to recognise the need or benefit of change and can often trip up in their haste to correct their lethargy— as was the case for New Coke. However, seek to revitalise too soon and too often and a business may succeed only in diluting their brand, sometimes to the point of anonymity. Maintaining a brand is a careful balancing act. And failure to maintain your brand effectively is a fast-track to entrepreneurial failure; especially as the gig-economy grows and businesses continue to scrimp on their brands.
The danger of change
While long periods of inertia can weaken a brand there are also major risks in making overdue changes. In 2013, The Metropolitan Museum of Art engaged branding firm Wolff Olins to develop a rebrand that would consolidate the museum’s many projects and holdings. The original brandmark — in use since 1971 — was an institution that Justin Davidson described as “a masterwork of resonant graphics.” When the rebrand was revealed, along with a new logomark design by Gareth Hague, instead of marking a new start for the museum it inspired widespread criticism.
The focus of the backlash was the strange logomark, which came across as a sloppy mashing together of letters that Davidson branded “a red double-decker bus that has stopped short, shoving the passengers into each other’s backs” before going on to say, “In the high-stakes game of international branding, physical expansion, and spiritual reorientation, the Met is relying on what it knows, and what it knows is … the Tate.”
Wolff Olins, whose work on the Tate brand catapulted them into the public eye, had previously courted controversy with its design for the 2012 Olympic logo which elicited countless jokes and parodies upon its reveal. As time has passed, some have softened their opinions on the logomark but still others continue to regard it as a considerable misstep. That Olympic logo reportedly cost $625,000 and there is little doubt The Met paid more.
For all this though, the time for The Met to rebrand was arguably correct. After four decades the Metropolitan Museum of Art was in need of a refresh. And though some may say that no publicity is bad publicity, this wasn’t true for Wolff Olins or The Met. The negative response that the rebrand inspired is now indelibly linked to the brand itself. It’s a shame, as the actual brand is perfectly adequate: succeeding in ratifying The Met’s disparate sites and projects, including the development of two typefaces and a vibrant unifying colour scheme. It’s not radical; “everyone [involved] used the words ‘friendlier,’ ‘simpler,’ and ‘contemporary’ a lot.” But The Met cannot be blamed for pursuing a safe rebrand in anticipation of the pushback any change likely would have prompted. However, the work that went into the brand’s development has been lost amid the incendiary reaction to its clumsy logomark.
Though smaller companies are unlikely to experience such public criticism, the fundamental concept of alienating existing and potential customers is the same. A shifting or, as is more common, an inconsistent brand is unlikely to inspire confidence in consumers. First impressions matter — and if the impression you’re promoting is of inconsistency then you’re unlikely to engender trust among potential customers. Many companies like to assume consumers are stupid, but the truth is that customers are often more savvy — even if only subconsciously — of what looks professional and what doesn’t. This doesn’t mean they understand the basics of branding, as shown in the reaction to the PS5 logomark, but it is a basic human instinct to make decisions based on how someone or something presents itself.
The value of motion
Though there are risks to major brand changes, there is also the potential of tremendous value in remaining proactive. While frequent changes can compromise a brand, creating a developing image that puts you at the forefront is likely to engender more trust in potential customers than remaining static.
In the early-2000s, brewery Stella Artois was trying to manage a degrading image. Having built its reputation on the brand “reassuringly expensive”, by 2007 it had become associated with the burgeoning binge-drinking culture and hooliganism — earning it the nickname “wifebeater.” It was by no means the only lager to contribute to these issues, but as a market leader and with an alcohol content of 5.2% (higher than any other lager on the market) it was easily the most visible. Such were the negative connotations Stella Artois was experiencing that many establishments ended up pulling the drink. While sales didn’t exactly suffer, they were propped up by the kind of customer that didn’t fit the upmarket image that Stella Artois was trying to portray. No amount of beautifully produced advertising could distance the lager from the “wifebeater”, supermarket-discount image.
The brewery arrested this decline when, in 2008, they relaunched their signature lager with a lower alcohol content and in doing so positioned themselves as allies in the battle against alcoholism rather than complicit in its growth. In 2010, they re-established their status as an upmarket product with a new logomark and, perhaps more importantly, the chalice. Gone was the image of discounted cans of lager, replaced instead with a sophisticated goblet that appears in much of the brewery’s marketing since. All of this was aided by their “thing of beauty” campaign. This mixture of pointed and subtle rebranding has made Stella Artois a market leader in its native Belgium and renewed its popularity worldwide.
Stella Artois could have satisfied themselves with continuing profits from a new market — young drinkers, binge-drinkers, etc — but they had the foresight to realise it was not a sustainable tactic and the savviness to recognise that exclusivity and quality are what sets them apart from the competition. Growing doubt in a brand that continued to present itself as upmarket but failed to live up to its promise may have eventually eroded consumer-trust. However, dedication to their own mission statement helped Stella Artois turn things around.
A growing negative image, especially when attached to specific events, is a major catalyst for brand reform. A recent example can be seen in Airbnb’s revitalisation following a number of scandals around how they supported their “hosts”. However, many companies, regardless of their motivation, choose to refresh their brand — to improve visual elements and cohesion — rather than make sweeping changes that could alienate customers or invite criticism.
Jessica Hische is an American designer and letterer perhaps best known for her logo refreshes thanks to a popular Skillshare course. Long before its recent rebrand, Mailchimp approached Hische to refresh its founding logotype— a particularly amateurish script. The end result was a more accomplished and professional logomark that better represented the growing company while not pulling it away from its original brand. It was a move that brought in enough new custom that Mailchimp could develop a more comprehensive rebrand later on.
A proactive attitude to branding — as opposed, for example, to the complacency of Coca-Cola in the 1980s — allows companies to keep their brand contemporary in the face of a rapidly evolving marketplace. This doesn’t necessarily mean major overhauls but rather the maintenance of a brand that, depending on context, may take the form of subtle refreshes, the injection of new systems and imagery, or even simply checking-in to assure that a brand continues to feel relevant.
As Stella Artois demonstrated, a change of image is often all that’s needed to reposition a company that has formerly incited negative connotations. Even then, all they really did was reaffirm the ideals upon which the brewery had been founded. Many smaller businesses approach the idea of rebranding as a complete change of culture. Though there are times when this is necessary often branding, especially when handled by a relevant professional, is simply the evolution and expansion of principles from which businesses originally grew.
If the example of The Met sets off warning bells, it should be reiterated that the time for such a comprehensive change in image was right for the museum. The issue was the execution. In better hands, the rebrand likely would have been a success. For instance, part of Burberry’s turn of fortune was the steady hand of, among others, Christopher Bailey. In a short space of time, Bailey was able to turn the fashion company from “an ailing raincoat maker — with a reputation for ‘chav check’ — into one of the world’s biggest luxury brands.”
A case study in inertia
Norfolk, East Anglia, isn’t exactly a design hub. Driving around Norwich and its surrounding villages, one is liable to see a range of tired signage and outdated brands as garages, shops, hair stylists, and others cling to the disparate brands they likely acquired when founded.
Garages are a prime example of how a business can fall into inertia. Often independently owned, few, if any, are willing to entertain the idea of branding. With a steady stream of custom that keeps them busy and makes ends meet, there is a feeling that there is little point in rocking the boat. Why risk putting money into a rebrand when, ostensibly, there is no problem that needs solving? It is an entirely understandable position to have. In many cases, small businesses require short-term thinking — in which expansion and new custom is less important than satisfying local clients.
After all, when a business is handled by one or two people — perhaps members of a family — with little outside help but from legal and financial professionals from time to time, there is little room for anything but the day-to-day. So many garages aren’t noticing among the stream of local regulars that larger businesses, such as Kwik-fit, are attracting elements of their customer-base. Nor do they have the wherewithal to realise that the few customers they may lose to larger chains in one year are likely to multiply as time goes on. Not necessarily due to problems with their service, but rather because customers are attracted to a well-known, national brand.
It’s a limited example but illustrative of the position in which many small businesses find themselves. Sometimes it is hard to see the value of risk when business is okay but all it takes is one major economic event* and smaller businesses, propped up by a small local customer pool, may lose out to larger brands in the long-run.
When to rebrand
So what does this mean for you? How does it help your business to look at the example of major brands with their large marketing divisions? The trials and successes of major brands demonstrate effective case studies of the situations in which any brand may find themselves — and how to come out of it ahead. Coca-Cola may have blundered with New Coke, but they bounced back quickly by demonstrating loyalty to their customers. The Met may be lumbered with negative press surrounding their brand but their position as an internationally-known museum hasn’t been threatened. Even in the most negative examples, there are lessons and positives.
As to the question of when exactly to rebrand, the answer isn’t always clear. The maintenance of a brand is nuanced and there isn’t a cheat sheet. Major brands employ marketing teams for that exact reason. But when the maintenance of a brand falls to small business owners who are responsible for a myriad number of other things, the brand is usually one of the first things to be neglected.
At times this is down to willful ignorance and a misplaced sense of confidence, as seen in a comment on my examination of Fiverr: “[I am] a sole proprietor who would rather not waste time and money on logo design, videos, small graphic design jobs, etc. and focus on actually making money…” (emphasis is my own). But more often its simply about entrepreneurs being overwhelmed and unaware of the importance of their brand and how it might aid them in shoring up their business.
The Internet offers a number of solutions to this, but given that so many of Google’s front page results are what amounts to paid advertising for sites like Canva and 99designs, it is unlikely to register with consumers. So let’s try and boil down a few examples of prime moments to rebrand:
- When you want, like Stella Artois, to distance yourself from an image that has been growing around your brand. This doesn’t have to be a negative image — it could simply be that your brand has become outdated.
When the market has evolved without you. Consider how Apple cornered the smartphone market and the scrambling of other companies to keep up. Now Apple faces stiff competition from, among others, Samsung, Google, and Huawei.
- When you actively want to attract a new audience. This can link into the first point, in that you might be looking at a younger demographic with which your outdated brand simply cannot engage. Consider how Burberry repositioned from the supplier of “chav check” to a market leader.
- When you’re experiencing growth and fundamentally outgrow your own brand. Perhaps you’ve opened new stores or offices, perhaps you’ve significantly expanded your product line. Your brand should grow with you. This is exactly what drove The Met to rebrand — which was the correct decision, they just arguably engaged the wrong branding firm.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Rather, it represents just a few examples of when it is the obvious time to rebrand. There are major subtleties to brand maintenance but keeping these points in mind will provide a good idea of when you need to explore the prospect of rebranding. It’s important to remember, also, that engaging specialists isn’t a black-and-white, sell or don’t sell matter. If you’re unsure, speak to someone — start a conversation. Simply contacting designers or freelancers doesn’t mean you have to buy something from them. There are very few professionals who aren’t happy to have a conversation with a prospective client, even if it doesn’t lead to a commission.
But if there is one thing you take away from this, I hope it’s that a brand is much more than a logomark. Indeed, the majority of businesses don’t need one. The explosion of the “logo design” industry — of which, it should be said, brand designers are complicit — especially on bidding sites has made it clear that few entrepreneurs are considering their brand and prefer instead to adorn their business with a picture. But a brand is about your core values; it’s about your services and products and how they communicate your mission statement; it’s about the unity of your image across platforms and projects. A logomark is but a small part of that — a very small part of that.
Deciding when to rebrand isn’t always easy. There’s a reason brand specialists train for years: this stuff is complicated — it’s hard. There is no harm in entrepreneurs asking for help. In most cases, when to rebrand is a judgment call based on many factors. But if you’re considering that perhaps the time is now then you should trust your instincts. Often, people are blinded by what they create; it’s why designers are so bad at designing for themselves and why writers struggle with their own editing. If you’re thinking it may be time to rebrand then the chances are others have come to that conclusion before you. Perhaps there is no better time than now — after all, if not now, then when?
早在今年1月，索尼就在2020年国际消费电子展上为即将面世的游戏机Playstation 5揭开了一个新的商标。这种React令人震惊，许多人批评设计师本应缺乏创造力。 游戏雷达以标题“
索尼透露了官方的PS5徽标，从字面上没有人感到惊讶，而Screen Rant则表示该 徽标 “还有 很多不足之处 。” 社交媒体用户将该公司称为懒惰和原始的品牌，而艺术家 BossLogic创造了一些人提出的更好的概念，而Game Rant则称之为“ 更令人满意的标志” 。
所有这些都说明人们普遍不了解品牌的建立和维护方式。 那些痛斥索尼未冒Playstation 5徽标风险的人未能意识到，发布新产品的引导是错误的变革时机，而新产品很大程度上取决于品牌忠诚度。 相反，Playstation品牌形象的连续性是保持品牌知名度的教科书示例，这种做法已经帮助索尼在主机市场上占据了二十年的统治地位 。
作为对比，考虑任天堂。 Wii U未能吸引消费者的想象力后，这家游戏巨头鼓动了从为Wii和Wii U开发的品牌标准到新形象的重大转变，这一新形象不仅使Switch脱颖而出，而且被任天堂的所有第一方游戏过滤。 在努力与Xbox 360和Playstation 3并驾齐驱之前，任天堂发布了一款新游戏机，其名称，外观和对目标市场的关注度都更高。 结果： 任天堂在游戏机销量上已经超过了微软 。
应该明确的是，管理品牌的时机至关重要。 它如何要求在风险和保留之间划清界限。 对于索尼和任天堂等主要品牌，在全球设有多个营销团队，何时更名和何时退缩的问题很容易回答。 但这并不总是那么简单。
毕竟，成功通常会导致自满，就像1985年那样，可口可乐公司忽略了百事可乐对其市场主导地位日益增长的威胁。 随着竞争对手争夺越来越多的市场份额， 可口可乐急于通过改变其标志性产品来弥补自己的损失 ，这是历史上最著名的营销失误之一 。
如果甚至国际品牌也可以溜走，那么小型企业的答案是什么？ 这不是很明显。 许多人认识到变更的必要性或好处很慢，并且常常急于纠正他们的嗜睡，就像新可乐一样。 但是，寻求过早和过于频繁地进行振兴，一家企业可能只会稀释其品牌才能成功，有时甚至会变得匿名。 维持品牌是一种谨慎的平衡行为。 未能有效维护品牌是企业失败的捷径。 尤其是随着演出经济的增长以及企业对品牌的cri贬不一。
变更的危险
虽然长时间的惯性可能会削弱品牌，但进行逾期变更也存在重大风险。 2013年，大都会艺术博物馆与品牌公司沃尔夫·奥林斯(Wolff Olins)进行了合作，共同开发了品牌重塑品牌，从而巩固了博物馆的许多项目和藏品。 自1971年以来一直使用的原始商标是贾斯汀·戴维森(Justin Davidson)形容为“ 共振图形的杰作 ”的机构。 当品牌更名后，加上Gareth Hague的新徽标设计，没有为博物馆带来新的开端，反而引起了广泛的批评。
抵制的焦点是一个奇怪的商标，该商标是马虎混在一起的字母，这些字母被戴维森称为“一辆红色的双层巴士，已经停下来，将乘客推向彼此的后背”，然后继续说：“在国际品牌，实体扩张和精神重新定位的高风险游戏中，大都会博物馆依靠的是它所知道的，而它所知道的是……泰特。”
沃尔夫·奥林斯(Tolf Olins) 在泰特(Tate)品牌上的作品一举成名，此前曾因其2012年奥运会徽标的设计而引起争议，该徽标在曝光时引起了无数的笑话和模仿。 随着时间的流逝，一些人已经淡化了对商标的看法，但仍然有一些人继续将其视为相当大的失误。 据报道，那个奥运标志花费了625,000美元 ，毫无疑问，The Met付出了更多。
尽管如此，The Met重塑品牌的时间可以说是正确的。 四十年后，大都会艺术博物馆需要重新装修。 尽管有人可能说没有宣传就是不好的宣传，但对于沃尔夫·奥林斯(Wolff Olins)或大都会博物馆(The Met)而言，事实并非如此。 现在，品牌重塑带来的负面React已与品牌本身息息相关。 真可惜，因为实际的品牌已经足够了：成功批准了大都会博物馆的不同地点和项目，包括开发了两种字体和充满活力的统一配色方案。 这不是激进的； “ 每个参与其中的人都经常使用“友好”，“简单”和“当代”这两个词。 ”“但大都会博物馆(The Met)不能因指望安全套牌而受到指责，因为它可能会引发任何变化。 但是，由于对其笨拙的徽标的强烈React，该品牌发展过程中的工作已丢失。
尽管较小的公司不太可能受到公众的批评，但疏远现有和潜在客户的基本概念是相同的。 不断变化的品牌(或更常见的是不一致的品牌)不太可能激发消费者的信心。 第一印象很重要-如果您要宣传的印象前后矛盾，那么您不太可能在潜在客户之间建立信任。 许多公司喜欢假设消费者是愚蠢的 ，但事实是，即使看起来只是下意识的，顾客通常还是更精明- 看起来很专业，什么不专业 。 这并不意味着他们了解商标的基本知识(如对PS5徽标的React所示)，而是根据某人或某物的呈现方式做出决定是人类的基本本能。
运动的价值
尽管存在重大品牌变更的风险，但保持主动性也具有巨大价值。 虽然频繁的更改可能会损害品牌，但建立一个发展中的形象使您处于最前沿，这可能会比保持稳定状态更能吸引潜在客户。
在2000年代初期，啤酒厂Stella Artois试图管理一个令人反感的形象。 凭借“令人放心的昂贵”品牌赢得了声誉，到2007年，它已与新兴的狂饮文化和流氓行为联系在一起，从而赢得了“战胜妻子”的绰号。 它绝不是唯一解决这些问题的啤酒，但作为市场领导者，其酒精含量为5.2％(高于市场上其他啤酒)，因此很容易被发现。 正是斯特拉•阿图瓦(Stella Artois)经历的消极含义，许多机构最终都喝了酒 。 虽然销售并没有受到很大的影响，但他们却受到了与斯特拉·阿图瓦斯(Stella Artois)试图描绘的高端形象不符的客户的支持。 制作精美的广告绝不能使“打败者”，超市打折的形象与啤酒相提并论。
该啤酒厂在2008年以较低的酒精含量重新推出了自己的招牌啤酒，并以此作为打击酒精中毒的盟友，而不是其发展的同伴而阻止了这种下降。 在2010年，他们重新确立了其高档产品的地位，并带有新徽标，甚至更重要的是圣杯。 打折的啤酒罐的形象消失了，取而代之的是精致的高脚杯，此后在啤酒厂的许多行销中都出现了。 所有这些都得益于他们的“ 美丽事物 ”运动。 尖锐而又含蓄的品牌重塑使得斯特拉·阿图瓦斯(Stella Artois)在其比利时故乡成为市场领导者，并在全球重新流行。
斯特拉·阿图瓦(Stella Artois)可以满足于从新市场(年轻的饮酒者，狂饮者等)获得的持续利润，但他们有远见，意识到这不是一种可持续的策略，并且精明地认识到排他性和质量是使他们与众不同的原因从比赛。 对于一个继续将自己展示为高档商品但未能兑现其承诺的品牌，人们越来越怀疑，这可能最终削弱了消费者的信任。 但是，奉献自己的使命宣言帮助Stella Artois扭转了局面。
越来越多的负面形象，尤其是与特定事件相关的负面形象，是品牌改革的主要催化剂。 一个最近的例子是在Airbnb振兴 之后，围绕着他们如何支持“房东”的一系列丑闻 。 但是，许多公司，不管动机如何，都选择更新其品牌-改善视觉元素和凝聚力-而不是进行大范围的更改，以免疏远客户或引起批评。
杰西卡·希切(Jessica Hische)是一位美国设计师和速记员，也许得益于受欢迎的Skillshare课程 ，她的徽标 令人耳目一新 。 Mailchimp在其最近的品牌重塑之前很久就与Hische联系，以刷新其创始徽标-一种特别业余的脚本。 最终结果是获得了更完善，更专业的徽标，可以更好地代表成长中的公司，同时又不脱离其原始品牌。 此举引入了足够的新习惯，使得Mailchimp以后可以开发更全面的品牌重塑 。
对品牌的积极态度(例如与1980年代可口可乐的自满相对)使公司在Swift发展的市场中保持其品牌的现代性。 这并不一定意味着要进行大修，而是要根据环境的不同，对品牌进行维护，包括进行细微的更新，注入新的系统和图像，甚至只是进行检入以确保品牌继续感到相关。
正如斯特拉·阿图瓦(Stella Artois)所展示的那样，通常需要改变形象来重新定位以前曾带有消极含义的公司。 即使那样，他们真正所做的还是重申了啤酒厂建立的理想。 许多较小的企业都将品牌重塑作为一种文化的彻底改变。 尽管有时这有时是必要的，但品牌推广，尤其是由相关专业人士进行的品牌推广，仅仅是企业最初发展的原则的演变和扩展。
如果以《大都会博物馆》为例，敲响了警钟，那么应该重申，这样全面改变形象的时机恰到好处。 问题是执行。 在更好的手中，更名可能会成功。 例如，巴宝莉(Burberry)命运的一部分是克里斯托弗·贝利(Christopher Bailey ) 的坚定双手 。 在很短的时间内，贝利得以将这家时装公司从“一家因“断腿检查”而衰弱的雨衣制造商，发展成为全球最大的奢侈品牌之一”。
惯性案例研究
东英吉利的诺福克(Norfolk)并不是一个设计中心。 在诺里奇及其周围的村庄周围行驶时，人们很容易看到各种各样的标牌和过时的品牌，例如车库，商店，发型师，以及其他人坚持成立时可能获得的不同品牌。
车库是企业如何陷入惯性的典型例子。 通常是独立拥有的，很少有人愿意接受品牌创意。 持续不断的习俗使他们忙碌并维持生计，这让人觉得摇摆船毫无意义。 当表面上没有需要解决的问题时，为什么要冒险将钱投入品牌重塑？ 这是完全可以理解的位置。 在许多情况下，小型企业需要短期思考-在这种情况下，扩张和新习惯比满足本地客户的重要性低。
毕竟，如果一家公司由一两个人(也许是一家人)来处理，几乎没有外部帮助，但法律和金融专业人士会不时地提供帮助，除了日常工作外，几乎没有其他余地。 如此众多的车库没有引起当地常客的注意，Kwik-fit等大型企业正在吸引其客户群。 他们也没有足够的钱去意识到，随着时间的流逝，他们可能会在一年内失去给大型连锁店的少数客户可能会成倍增加。 不一定是由于服务方面的问题，而是因为客户被某个知名的民族品牌所吸引。
这是一个有限的示例，但可以说明许多小型企业所处的位置。 有时候，在生意还不错的情况下，很难看到风险的价值，但要做的只是一场重大的经济事件*，而在较小的本地客户群的支持下，较小的企业从长远来看可能会输给较大的品牌。
何时重塑品牌
所以这对于你来说意味着什么？ 它如何帮助您的企业以拥有大型营销部门的主要品牌为例？ 大型品牌的试验和成功展示了有效的案例研究，以探讨任何品牌可能会遇到的情况以及如何脱颖而出。 可口可乐可能对新可乐大失所望，但他们通过表现出对客户的忠诚度Swift反弹。 大都会博物馆可能对其品牌负有负面新闻，但他们作为国际知名博物馆的地位并未受到威胁。 即使在最负面的例子中，也有教训和正面的影响。
至于何时确切重塑品牌的问题，答案并不总是很清楚。 品牌的维护很细致，没有备忘单。 主要品牌正是出于这个原因聘用了营销团队。 但是，当品牌的维护工作由负责许多其他事务的小企业主承担时，品牌通常是最容易被忽视的事情之一。
有时这归结为故意的无知和放错了位置的信心，如对我对Fiverr的评论所看到的那样 ：“ [我是独资经营者，他不想浪费时间 和金钱在徽标设计，视频，小型图形上设计工作等，并专注于实际赚钱……”(强调是我自己的)。 但是更多的是，这仅仅是因为企业家不知所措，他们不知道自己品牌的重要性以及它如何帮助他们维持业务。
互联网为此提供了许多解决方案，但是鉴于Google的头版结果如此之多，就等于Canva和99designs等网站的付费广告，因此不太可能向消费者注册。 因此，让我们尝试列举一些重要时刻来重塑品牌的示例：
- 当您想要像Stella Artois一样，将自己与品牌周围不断增长的形象区分开。 这不一定是负面的形象，可能仅仅是您的品牌已经过时。
当市场在没有您的情况下发展时。 考虑一下苹果如何垄断智能手机市场，以及其他公司如何跟上竞争步伐。 现在，苹果面临来自三星，谷歌和华为等公司的激烈竞争 。
- 当您积极想要吸引新的观众时。 这可以归结为第一点，因为您可能正在寻找一个过时的人群，而过时的品牌根本无法与之互动。 考虑一下巴宝莉如何将“支票支票”的供应商重新定位为市场领导者。
- 当您经历增长并从根本上超越自己的品牌时。 也许您已经开设了新的商店或办公室，也许您已经大大扩展了产品线。 您的品牌应该与您一同成长。 这正是促使The Met重塑品牌的原因-这是正确的决定，他们只是聘请了错误的品牌公司。
这绝不是详尽的清单。 相反，它仅代表了何时是重塑品牌的明显时机。 品牌维护有很多细微之处，但牢记这些要点将为您何时需要探索更名商标的前景提供一个好主意。 同样重要的是要记住，吸引专家不是黑白的，出售或不出售东西。 如果不确定，请与某人交谈-开始对话。 仅联系设计师或自由职业者并不意味着您必须从他们那里购买东西。 很少有专业人士不愿意与潜在客户进行对话，即使这不会导致佣金。
但是，如果您能从中拿走一件事，我希望品牌不仅仅是标志。 确实，大多数企业不需要。 “徽标设计”行业的爆发式增长-应该说是品牌设计师的同谋-尤其是在竞标网站上，这清楚地表明，很少有企业家在考虑自己的品牌，而更愿意为自己的企业装饰图片。 但是品牌是关于您的核心价值的。 它与您的服务和产品以及它们如何传达您的使命声明有关； 这与跨平台和项目的图像统一性有关。 徽标只是其中的一小部分-很小的一部分。
确定何时重新命名并不总是那么容易。 品牌专家培训多年的原因是：这种东西很复杂- 很难 。 寻求帮助的企业家没有伤害。 在大多数情况下，何时更名是一个基于许多因素的判断电话。 但是，如果您正在考虑也许现在是时候，那么您应该相信自己的直觉。 人们常常对自己创造的东西视而不见。 这就是为什么设计师如此不擅长为自己设计作品的原因，以及为什么作家难以进行自己的编辑的原因。 如果您认为可能是时候重塑品牌，那么其他人很有可能在您面前得出这个结论。 也许没有比现在更好的时间了-毕竟，如果不是现在，那么什么时候 ？
Cover image source: Bannersnack
封面图片来源： Bannersnack
*We are already seeing many small brands struggle in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though it should be said that this is mostly down to a lack of governmental support and systematic issues rather than a lack of brand consideration. See more below.
*我们已经看到许多小品牌在应对COVID-19大流行中挣扎，尽管应该说这主要是由于缺乏政府支持和系统性问题，而不是缺乏品牌考虑。 请参阅下文。
翻译自: https://uxdesign.cc/the-cult-of-brand-when-should-i-join-5c4f2eff019d
底层开发崇拜
1193
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
