Five of the worst:
Cardiff City Football Club
When youve been around for over 100 years and have had the same nickname, colour scheme and comparable badge design, going for a change across the board is sure to ruffle some feathers. However, when Thai businessman Vincent Tan bought into the club back in 2010, he decided it was in the clubs best interest to have an image that would attract more Asian fans. From the blue of the Bluebirds to the red of the Dragons, the rebranding was wildly unpopular with loyal fans and the club was forced to retreat and bring back the blue of yesteryear.
Except in exceptional circumstances, when a company the public has come to know and love introduces a new logo they will want you to notice it and come to the conclusion that it is better. In Christmas of 2010 Gap introduced a new logo with no warning that first went unnoticed. When the public did pick up on it, feedback was not good. Only six days after the new logo had been unveiled, and a considerable amount spent, Gap did a u-turn and bought back its original.
Another brand and logo that has become instantly recognisable the world over due to its appearance on credit and debit cards, someone in the marketing team obviously felt they werent busy enough. Trading in the value of a memorable logo, a new and rather more complicated one was introduced. After being told by customer and the public that the company had got it all wrong, MasterCard, like many others before it, back-pedalled and brought back the old logo. The new one, perhaps to justify the price paid for it, was only used in business communications.
When Royal Mail moved from state ownership to private control in 2001, the powers that be decided a rebrand was in order to. The process involved an entirely new name, Consignia. What was once an iconic name and logo was changed overnight, and rather predictably the majority responded with distain. Realising that theyd made the wrong move, management changed the companys name back to Royal Mail a year later. With the postal service having been floated on the stock market in 2013, in a move that was believed to have undervalued its worth, maybe we can look forward to another ill-fated branding change in the coming years.
Separating out into two companies in 2011, TNTs Post division was rebranded to Whistl a much more human, friendly and consumer facing appearance. The company had plans to up staff numbers from 3,000 then to 20,000 by 2019 on the back of the new name and look but not all has gone to plan. In early May of 2015, Whistl suspended door-to-door devilries in three cities and announced it was consulting 2,000 workers in redundancy. It was then revealed that its potential private equity backer, LDC, was not prepared to fund expansion plans. And a weird one:
London 2012 Olympics
This wasnt a rebrand, as no brand had existed before, but is a classic example of creating something the public just didnt like. Costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, the pink, blue, green and orange logo (something should have told them they were going wrong with that combination) was unveiled in 2007. Cue an internet backlash fuelled by some clever Photoshop work suggesting what the logo really looked like. The Guardian come to the conclusion: The problem with all this is that the new logo is fundamentally patronising. Would-be adults in charge of events like the London 2012 Olympics should put childish things, language and brand savvy logos aside. No child is impressed by parents who try to dress like infants in, for example, all-day pyjama outfits and baseball caps, or who try to speak in the latest, and supposedly fashionable, jargon. By Hunter Ruthven
Share this story