5 Biggest Brand Fails of 2017



Pepsi


One of the most reviled ads in recent memory, Pepsi’s two-and-a-half minute spot “Live for Now,” featured Kendall Jenner leaving her modeling job to join a nondescript protest. In the ad, tensions are mounting between protesters and police—that is, until Jenner magically solves everything by opening a Pepsi for a cop. The brand quickly pulled the spot, which was released in early April, and apologized.





There’s so much in the ad that doesn’t make sense. Why would protest signs read “Join the Conversation”? How are we supposed to feel something for Jenner right after she rips off her wig and carelessly tosses it at a black woman standing next to her?


Lesson learned: Arguably, the biggest brand gaff Pepsi committed with this spot was putting its product in the center of social issues while simultaneously trivializing said issues. As writer, social worker and activist Feminista Jones eloquently put it earlier this year when asked about the ad, “brands should never make light of social issues related to people’s suffering; they should, instead, focus on selling their products in ways that don’t exploit the pain and suffering of marginalized people.”
Dove


In October, Dove posted a social ad on its Facebook page that featured a black woman taking off a shirt similar to her skin tone to reveal that she had turned into a white woman wearing a shirt similar to her skin tone. Suffice to say, people immediately and rightfully criticized the ad, calling it racist and pointing out how it was similar to racist Victorian-era soap ads. After receiving the much-deserved criticism, Dove pulled the ad and apologized: “In an image we posted this week, we missed the mark in thoughtfully representing women of color and we deeply regret the offense that it has caused. The feedback that has been shared is important to us, and we’ll use it to guide us in the future.”








Shortly after the ad was pulled, Lola Ogunyemi, the black model featured in it, penned an op-ed for the Guardian where she gave readers context and noted that the “full TV edit does a much better job of making the campaign’s message loud and clear.”


Lesson learned: While context certainly helps, Dove—or any brand, for that matter—should never create an ad that could so easily be taken out of context, especially one that could read as having a racist message.
Facebook


It’s not an ad per se, but Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was probably hoping that using the company’s Facebook Spaces VR app to tour the damage in Puerto Rico after the hurricanes in October would result in people wanting to use the app. Instead, Facebook’s decision to conduct a “magical tour” (as Zuckerberg dubbed it) of the damage was seen as exploitative. While it certainly wasn’t Facebook’s only fail of the year—Russian ads, anyone?—it was still a huge public-facing flop.






View image on Twitter









Lesson learned: Think about your ad from multiple perspectives. An internal team should have the wherewithal to warn someone about the potential pitfalls of covering sensitive subjects like natural disasters.
Uber


Again, not an ad, but a series of brand flops: During the first half of the year,
Uber was repeatedly in the news, and none of it was good. Uber was a brand in crisis.



First, in January, Uber made headlines for its approach to Trump’s Muslim ban.
The following month, ex-Uber SRE (site reliability engineer)
Susan Fowler detailed the workplace harassment she faced at the company; Uber subsequently
launched an investigation into sexual harassment.
But that same month, a video emerged of then-CEO Travis Kalanick berating an Uber driver.
That news was followed by the announcement in March that the ride-sharing app’s president,
Jeff Jones (previously Target’s CMO), would step down because Uber’s “beliefs and approach to
leadership” were not in line with his own. Shortly after that,
new reports emerged, detailing an instance in 2014 when Kalanick
went to an escort/karaoke bar in Seoul with other Uber execs.


In June, Kalanick finally stepped down from his role as CEO. That same month,
Bozoma Saint John was hired as Uber’s first chief brand officer; since then, much
of the news has been about various things Uber is testing instead of its damaged brand.


Lesson learned: Today’s public wants to support companies whose beliefs align
with their own—and skeletons won’t stay in the closet for long.



McDonald’s


In May, McDonald’s released a 90-second spot in the U.K., “Dad,” which struck
many viewers as odd and exploitative. The spot followed a young boy asking his
mother to tell him what his father was like before he passed away. Throughout the
ad, the boy is clearly hoping one of the descriptions will line
up with something that would describe him. None of them do—until he’s with his
mom at McDonald’s, where she lovingly explains that his order (a Filet-O-Fish) was his
dad’s favorite too.


After swift criticism of the ad online, McDonald’s pulled the spot, apologized, and
noted that it would review its creative process to prevent an error like this from
occurring again. Still, why McDonald’s would want to tell a story about grief
while also trying to sell a fish sandwich…well, we may never have an answer to that question.


Lesson learned: This one covers all of these brand flops: Don’t exploit people’s
pain for an ad. Just don’t.











5 Epic Branding Fails from Mega Corporations (And What You Can Learn from Them)


Here they are with billions of dollars, hundreds or thousands of people to work on a single
campaign, and supposedly some of the brightest minds in the business community giving
them advice, and yet when we as consumers finally get to see what they roll out…
sometimes it’s just stupid. You look at it and think, "How on earth did they ever
believe this would work?"


We all know about classic blunders like New Coke and the Arch Deluxe, but really,
those are just the tip of the iceberg. Look around, and the marketing world is full of epic branding fails.


I’ve been studying them for years, and while I can’t tell you why they continue to happen,
I can say there’s a lot to learn from watching their products flop. Let’s go through a few
examples, and I’ll show you what I mean:
Fail #1: Not Having Answers to “What Exactly Is It?" and "Why Should I Want It?”


Back in the early 80s shampoo megabrand Clairol introduced two shampoos named,
“Look of Buttermilk” and “Touch of Yogurt.” And the products flopped.


For one, you have to wonder… are you washing your hair in actual yogurt? And if
you are, why would you want to do that? Wouldn’t it be kind of… sticky?


For two, if you’re naming a product the "Look of Buttermilk," what exactly does
buttermilk look like? Not everyone knows, and prospective customers were confused.
Why would you want your hair to look like milk?


In both cases, the products were inexcusably vague. Not only did they fail to
communicate the benefit, but they failed to communicate with the product actually was.
It’s no wonder they flopped.
Fail #2: Lending Your Brand to Products in an Unrelated Market


Some brands have a name that makes anything popular “by association.”


Sony can release almost any type of electronics product, and people will buy
it just because it’s Sony. Stouffer can release almost any type of prepackaged
meal, and people will buy it because they know it’ll taste homemade (or close to it).
Both companies regularly test new products, putting their name on them and seeing
how they sell, and they often do well, solely on the strength of the brand.


The important point though is that they release products within their niche. Sony isn’t
trying to make prepackaged food, and Stouffer isn’t trying to sell electronics.


It makes sense, but big brands forget all the time.


Harley Davidson fans will buy just about anything emblazoned with the famous
logo: t-shirts, lighters, jackets – everything a biker needs. But when they tried to
introduce Harley Davidson perfume and aftershave, fans revolted. If you drive a
Harley, you don’t want to smell nice. You want to smell though, like leather and
motor oil, and you don’t need perfume or aftershave to help you do that.
Fail #3: Failing to Evolve with the Market


Ask your grandparents about Ovaltine, the malted milk drink, and chances are they
can hum or whistle the radio jingle that used to accompany it. These days,
Ovaltine is promoted as more of a health drink or a breakfast shake, but it still fails to
gain much brand recognition among anyone younger than 60.


Why?


Because it held too tightly and too long to its previous purpose: a sleep
aid before bed. They thought they’d carved out a market niche, but as
the market evolved, more and more customers moved to drinks like
Ensure who marketed their ability to serve as a meal replacement.
Ovaltine should’ve evolved with the market, but they didn’t, and
now they are suffering for it.


The lesson: nostalgia does not always equal better sales.
Fail #4: Launching When the Market Isn’t Ready


No one but the most mobile of urban professionals carried a
smartphone in the early 90s, but that’s precisely when Apple
leapt onto the scene with its Newton PDA.


Unlike more modern Apple innovations, such as the iPhone and
iPad, the Newton didn’t beget long lines of early adopters.
Instead, it got blasted by everything from talk shows to comic strips for its
poor handwriting recognition and massive price tag (~$700).


Since no trendsetter wants to align themselves with something unpopular,
Newton faded into tech-antiquity while cheaper, smarter devices like the
Palm Pilot and Blackberry began to stake their claim in the digital market,
which was ready for innovation.

Fail #5: Promising One Thing and Delivering Another


If you say you stand for one thing, and deliver something completely different,
you can bet customers won’t fall for it twice.


Case in point: Domino’s Pizza. The longtime king of fast delivery, good and
cheap pizza was quickly unseated by complaints of cardboard-like crust and
sauce that tasted like ketchup. Yes, it was fast, and yes, it was cheap, but it
wasn’t good, and by promising customers good pizza, they raised expectations
too high, setting themselves up to fail.


These days, Domino’s has finally stepped up to the plate and admitted their faults,
promoting an entirely new type of dedication to the art of pizza-making. But is it too little, too late?


A brand identity, name, and logo is a company's public face. So you'd think
companies would be really careful in figuring out how to revamp that image.




Sadly, a good number of recent rebranding attempts seemed to just crash and burn.



The lesson? A successful rebranding involves overhauling a company's
goals, message, and culture -- not just changing a name or a logo.


Also, messing with a classic is, more often than not, a bad idea.


Unfortunately, despite their massive marketing budgets, it seems like many
major corporations (and one major international city) haven't gotten the memo.
The SciFi Channel's "text-friendly" new name is a slang word for syphilis















Maybe the SciFi Channel should have checked out urbandictionary.com before it rolled 
out its new name. They would have discovered that, in most parts of the world, "syfy" is a
 slang term for syphilis.


The company's main justification for the change was that, while they couldn't trademark the 
term "sci fi," they could own the alternate spelling.


In an interview for TVWeek , president David Howe explains another reason: "[T]he thing 
that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, 
is actually this is how you'd text it ... It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, 
much more hip."


Not surprisingly, "the response was completely negative," Frankel tells us. "[The change] alienated many longtime fans, and it was completely ridiculed."


And being associated with an STD is never a good marketing tactic.

Tropicana underestimates their customers' attachment to a classic













Silly PepsiCo! All it was trying to do was bring its classic Tropicana OJ into the 21st century.


Unfortunately, the company underestimated how attached their customers had become to
the old design. When it rolled out its new cartons in January 2009, the consumer backlash
was immediate and powerful.


The New York Times reports that "[ s]ome of those commenting described the new packaging as
"ugly" or "stupid," and resembling "a generic bargain brand" or a "store brand. ""


After a month of being bombarded by e-mails, phone calls, and social media commentary,
PepsiCo announced that it would promptly return to the old carton.

London may have won the bid, but its weird Olympic logo has everyone up in arms








The Associated Press




If there's anything we've learned today, it's that you shouldn't mess around too much
with a classic. And there are few things more classic than the Olympics.


But the organizers behind London's 2012 logo wanted to inject a little modernity
into the branding of their Games. As their website puts it , "Our emblem is simple,
distinct, bold and buzzing with energy.... It feels young in spirit... Not afraid to shake
things up, to challenge the accepted. To change things."


Unfortunately, the unveiling was met with resounding disapproval, and even hostility.


ABC News reports that the logo, which cost $800,000 to create, was generally deemed as
childish, ridiculous, ugly, and in no way representative of London or the Games. Visually,


"it's really hard to understand what they're trying to say," Method's Alicia Bergin commented.


In an unofficial public poll by the BBC , 80% of those surveyed gave the logo the lowest
possible ranking.

Radio Shack tries really, really hard to be hip, with "The Shack"






Described as "totally ridiculous" by our branding experts, Radio Shack's decision to call
itself "The Shack" was a sad attempt to be hip.


"Why would anyone throw away decades of brand value (which actually shows
up on the balance sheet as an intangible asset) just to try to be cool for a few minutes?"
Frankel asks.


Engadget's Joshua Topolsky puts it aptly when he supposes that " they wanted us to
immediately picture a remote location where very, very bad things happen."
Capital One revamps with a dated and irrelevant swoosh







This is another failed attempt by a large company to relate to consumers on a hipper level.
Unfortunately, Capital One was about a decade too late with their addition of a "swoosh" in 2008.


Brand design blog Brand New reacted like this: "Nothing, in the year 2008, can justify the
use of a swoosh. "


"It doesn't add any distinction, and it's been done a million times before," Bergin tells us.
"They wanted to have more of a consumer-facing feel, but this is too obvious."

Accenture: The ultimate corporate name that means nothing






When Andersen Consulting cut ties with Arthur Andersen, they
did the worst thing a company could do -- they let a marketing
consultant choose the new brand name.


The result sounds like the quintessential, meaningless, "big corporation" name,
Frankel says. Although it was supposedly inspired by the phrase "accent on the
future," it tells the customer nothing .


As another one of Time' s worst name changes, the article says , " The change cost
Andersen/Accenture an estimated $100 million to execute and was regarded as one of
the worst rebrandings in corporate history ."



Blackwater tries to erase the past with "Xe" (pronounced 'Zee')






After some major human rights violations tainted Blackwater's name in 2007,

the company took Wired's advice and tried to rename itself.

According to an ABC News report , the company explained that it chose 'Xe'

because the word has "no connotations." It's completely meaningless... and confusing.

Unfortunately, a simple name change won't erase the public memory -- the company

is still generally referred to as Blackwater , or some variation of "Blackwater, now renamed

Xe", and it's struggling to get business.
We're not sure why Pepsi's new logo cost them $1
million to develop








Pepsi is no stranger to logo redesigns. But the company reportedly spent $1 million on their latest reincarnation, and it turned out like... this.


Frankel describes the attempt as a " [r]eal waste of time and money, especially if you've seen the
design spec document... An amazing, purposeless document that has no brand value at all," yet cost
Pepsi so much.


The white stripe on the new logo varies across Pepsi products, getting wider or thinner depending
on product. The design team that spearheaded the campaign explains that they're supposed to be
"smiles," but we don't really see it.


As this clever graphic from The Consumerist shows, the Pepsi logo seems to have
been redone nearly once a decade over the last century -- while Coke's iconic logo
has barely been touched . It's not hard to see which is the better strategy here.
Comcast introduces.... "Xfinity"







Named as one of Time magazine's Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes ,
Comcast's decision to re-name itself "Xfinity" in 11 of its U.S. markets was just awful.


As we reported , "Xfinity? Seriously? What the heck does that mean? "


"Comcast hopes the new moniker will help customers forget the high prices and
poor customer service for which the company has been criticized in the past," the
Times article says. "Will the name change work? Probably not, but at least it'll sound
a bit edgier when you're put on hold ... with Xfinity. "


And then there's Aol. (yes, with the period) --
and the jury is still out.


According to our sources, the reaction to the new Aol. has been split relatively evenly.
But the key will be whether or not the company can fulfill the new identity they've adopted
through their services and products.


"They've signaled they're re-inventing themselves.... It's ambitious," Bergin says.
"The real challenge is can they make all of their products live up to the promise of this new brand."


The Brand New blog points out , "If AOL is committed to shedding not just its
Time Warner shares but also its public perception as a web dinosaur then this identity
can do it for them."


That is the key to a successful rebranding, after all -- " the real reason to rebrand is to
alter the expectations you're setting for the public ," Frankel explains. "Changing your
brand strategy means becoming different company.... it's not just changing your name or your logo."



Stick a Fork in Them, They’re Done – Biggest Brand Failures of 2017


We’re halfway through 2017 and already we have some serious contenders for the
Brand Fail of the Year award. There’s good marketing, there’s bad marketing,
and then there are just outright WTF marketing moments. The marketing fail gems
that make you realize some marketing creatives are just not spending enough time
outside of the office with the three-dimensional people.

These are the top Big Brand
Marketing Fails of 2017.
Big Brand #FAILS of 2017

Here they are, in no particular order. You will have to decide on a winner (or loser) for yourself.

Dove #Fail


Dove took it upon themselves to create a limited (thank goodness)
edition line of “Real Beauty Bottles”. With the help of the mighty
Ogilvy, London, they launched a campaign selling their body wash in
bottles supposedly shaped like “real women”. The idea was to show the
power of diversity of a woman’s body. The reality? They made everyone
feel more self-conscious than ever, only provided 7 different shapes to choose
from, and essentially forced women to choose a bottle the same shape that they are.
Awkward. Maybe the strategist who came up with that one was secretly working for
Johnson & Johnson.


The lesson: Don’t make a separate product package
for each body type, and focus on the important details of why people purchase your products.







Pepsi Cola #Fail


While we understand (but don’t really get) that the Kardashians are a pretty
big deal, and marketing through them is bound to attract attention, we did have
to wonder about Pepsi’s decision to tie Kendall in with their piggy-back
attempt on the #blacklivesmatters movement.


In their infamous video, they featured people of all shapes, colours, and sizes
enjoying a Pepsi with the police. The clip is topped by Kendall Jenner dispelling
racial tension by offering the cops a Pepsi. Needless to say, the Twitter-universe
went wild. People called out the more ridiculous parts of the ad, and Pepsi was forced to
issue an official apology.


The moral here is: Never (ever) make light of a political/human rights issue for the sake
of a quick ad. The issues discussed are far more grave and important than your bottle of soda pop.




Heineken #Fail


(or as we’re calling it, Pepsi fail 2.0)


Just after Pepsi’s epic fail at trying to show how “woke” they are,
Heineken pretty much did the exact same thing, just different.
They made a video with a bunch of people who are from opposing
ideologies, a feminist, a male chauvinist, a transgender woman and
someone who is opposed to that. And so on and so forth. They didn’t
get quite the same Twitter slapping that Pepsi did, and we’re not sure
if this is necessarily a “fail”, but all in all, the ad seemed to lack any
substance other than to show that Heineken is “#wokeAF” as the youths are saying nowadays.


Heineken Worlds Apart AdUber #Fail


Speaking of Political tension…


Uber managed to get their epic fail in early this season. When Donald Trump’s ban
on Muslim countries hit the trade on the 28th of January, the New York Taxi
Workers Alliance asked members to stay away from JFK International airport for
an hour. What did Uber do? They announced a drop in pricing at the airport!
Leaving anti-ban Uber users no choice but to delete the app and take to the
Twitter-verse to let them know just what they thought of them. Not a good
move for Uber- although we are sure that the guys over at Lyft are pretty
happy about all the new custom. Uber tried to save themselves in an epic
back pedal manoeuvre, but the damage was already done, proving not all press is good press.





The lesson: It’s up to brands to decide if they will publically side one way
or another in political matters and/or prioritize profit over ethics. Should
your brand choose to take a side, you should discuss all the possibilities
for negativity and how you’ll handle it if it arises.
United Airlines #Fail


United Airlines managed to take themselves down more through their antics this
year than by actual ad spend. What they, unfortunately, failed to think through is
that most people these days have smartphones, and we are all obsessed with
documenting everything. So when they pulled some seriously questionable client
liaison stunts, the world got to know about it, fast. Some of the United Airlines
fails that set Twitter alight this year included:
Body Shaming teen girls for wearing leggings
Dragging an Asian American man from his seat so that a staff member could sit
their sweet petunia down on it, and (our personal twisted favourite)
Killing a bunny rabbit on the damn plane




Twitter has had no shortage of viral material from United Airlines
so far this year, we wait with baited breath to see what they come up with for June through December.






The lesson: treat your paying customers with at least the same basic respects
you’d show any human being?


Wendy’s #Fail

Yet another customer care fail for a big US company in 2017.
Wendy’s got into an ill-advised spat with customers on Twitter
(is it ever a good idea for big brands to quibble with customers – uh, no)
over whether they really use fresh and not frozen beef.


They probably would have gotten away with it if they hadn’t decided to post a
“Pepe the frog” meme on the thread. For those of you who missed it, Pepe was
co-opted by white supremacists at election time in 2016.
Needless to say, screenshots were taken, and although they quickly
realized their mistake and took down the post the damage was already done.
Good luck living that one down, Wendy.


The lesson to be learned: With great pop culture use comes great responsibility.
Also, an encyclopedic knowledge of meme usage is helpful.


Mc Donald’s #Fail


More food politics. Poor old Ronald just didn’t see it coming, maybe it was his hat in the way. In an attempt at a burn against the American President, the McD’s marketing team posted a tweet that read “You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President and we would love to have @BarackObama back,” before dropping the mic with, “also you have tiny hands.” Then they pinned it to the top pf their profile. Um. Needless to say, there were not many Trump supporters at McDonald’s that day. The company later issued an apology and claimed to have been hacked. #Burn.


The lesson: blame technical difficulties




Pizza Hut #Fail


Seriously? When did fast food become so involved in politics? Pizza Hut takes the cake (pun intended) with their crass piggy-backing on Hunger Strike leader and political prisoner Marwan Barghouti. The Hunger strike leader was videoed eating some cookies, and the brand jumped on it as a marketing opportunity. Needless to say, Palestinians launched a boycott against them and things got pretty nasty for Pizza Hut after that.



A word of caution to all marketers out there: Know your audience, and as we mentioned above, don’t make light of a current political situation to make a quick ad.

Adidas #Fail


Apparently piggybacking on all things disastrous, negative and tragic is the name of the game for the “Big Brand Fail” 2017 edition. Addidas has certainly been around long enough to know better, but that didn’t stop them sending a very unfortunate e-mail in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013. The subject line of the e-mail read “Congratulations, you survived the Boston Marathon”. Not cool man, seriously not cool. No matter how long you wait – some things just don’t get funny with time. After some serious roasting for the mail, they were forced to post a hearty apology.





That means we can dig into the following rebranding failures and see exactly went wrong.


For me, the following companies completely messed up their rebranding efforts.
Maybe they should have looked at this post when considering rebranding their company.


Let’s dive in, investigate these rebranding disasters, and see how much the cost:


British Petroleum (BP)

BP Rebrand Before and After
BP have had a torrid time of late.
In the year 2000 they replaced a strong logo that had been
with their company for 70 or so years and replaced it with
their current logo design, the “Helios” – the name of the Greek sun god.
The only element of the original logo that the new design
retains is the colour palette.
BP used to have a concise logo with a small footprint, when
they rebranded, the footprint increased and the logo lost it’s timeless appeal.
By footprint, I mean the size that the logo occupies in the space it sits.
As you can see, the original shield design takes up less space, and would
 be less awkward to use in context.
Because of the addition of the BP to the top right of the helios,
it increases the footprint of the design, meaning it takes up more
 room, and I’d imagine it’s a challenge to work with.
The Helios logo is meant to symbolise and represent the company’s
green growth strategy by taking on the form of a sun. However, when it
boils down to to it, there’s nothing green about drilling oil and it seems as
 though BP are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. It would have been
better to stay away from this sort of connotation altogether.
After the uproar over BP’s strange new logo choice had truly died down,
the company caused global outrage with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
On April the 20th 2010, BP were responsible for what is considered the largest
marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill thrust BP back into the media spotlight for all
 of the wrong reasons, even prompting Greenpeace to challenge people to come
up with “a new logo design” for BP, relating to the spill. Some of the results
were highly creative, a selection is shown below;
Creative BP Oil Spill Logos
BP are one of the world’s largest companies and they probably won’t
ever revert to their original brand identity. With the largest marine oil
spill of all time associated with BP, they’ll be looking to reduce the
 fallout from the spill and make some positive PR moves as soon as possible.
Estimated Cost: The cost of the “Helios logo design” and it’s rollout
was rumoured to be $211,000,000. The company spends up to $125 million
 annually on improving their brand and marketing. They’ll also need to inject
a lot of cash into the cleanup operation of Deepwater Horizon.

Cardiff City

Cardiff City Rebrand Before and After
Oh Cardiff City “Bluebirds”, you make me laugh.
When new owner Vincent Tan took over, he decided to change
Cardiff City’s brand identity as much as possible.
The Premier League football team once known as the Bluebirds,
always had blue kits and a blue logo. When Mr Tan took over, he
decided to change the kit from blue to red, along with replacing the
 blue bird on the logo to a red dragon. Fair enough, he was playing up to
the Welsh flag, but it just didn’t make sense.
So the Bluebirds are now playing in red, with their kit logo being a red
 Welsh dragon. Are they now nicknamed the Red Dragons? No. To
add to the confusion, Vincent Tan decided to let the team keep their
original nickname and added a small blue bird to the bottom of their
predominately red logo. Crazy times for Cardiff City.
Estimated Cost: Vincent Tan had to plough an estimated £100 million into
 the football team’s rebrand. Along with the monetary cost, the rebrand also
 cost Cardiff City the faith and trust of a selection of their newly confused fans.

Gap

Gap Rebrand Before and After
During the busy Christmas period of 2010,
Gap launched a new logo design and rebranded their
company to suit. They did so with no warning.
The original Gap logo, a design that had served the brand
for more than 20 years, disappeared from without warning
and was replaced with the new logo – the word Gap in a bold
 font and a square, fading diagonally from light blue to dark blue.
The change was no internet hiccup, it was permanent – or so it seemed.
A small buzz began to reverberate around the design community,
quiet sniggering about the new Gap logo. Soon, the internet was alive
with activity and it was clear that people didn’t like the new design.
Gap responded positively, revealing that their new logo design was in
fact the first stage of a crowd sourcing process that allowed them to reinvent
 the company (proving again why you shouldn’t crowd source your design projects.)
To cut a long story short, Gap performed possibly one of the fastest branding
 turnarounds of all time when they reverted to their original design, just six days
after putting their new logo out into the public. There are many things that
can be learned from Gap’s disaster and that article might just write itself in
 the near future.
Estimated Cost: The Gap rebrand was estimated to have cost them $100
million, not the price tag you’d expect for something that could’ve been cobbled
together using WordArt.

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn Rebrand Before and After
When a company rebrands, you would expect the new image to be
fresh looking and forward thinking, however, they’re two concepts that
 the Holiday Inn brand managed to overlook altogether.
While the new logo design isn’t bad by a long stretch, it’s not fantastic either.
 They appear to have given their brand identity a little polish nada bit of a
spring clean rather than a complete overhaul. On top of that, considering the
rebrand is only five years old, it’s already starting to look a little dated.
Research leads me to believe that the identity was developed by an inhouse
 team and only time will tell if they’ve made the right move for the international
 hotel chain.
Estimated Cost: The rebrand of the Holiday Inn hotel chain was dubbed
 “the $1 billion rebrand”, all in all, a lot of money to spend on such a generic solution.

Kraft

Kraft Rebrand Before and After
Kraft are one of the biggest food and drinks companies in the world.
When they revealed their new brand identity in 2009, the design
community went crazy and eventually, the food giant relented and six
 months later, pretty much reverted to their original concept.
So what was so bad about their new choice of logo? Well firstly, they’re
 using Tekton as one of their fonts. A font used only in the same breath as
Comic Sans and Papyrus. A dreadful decision. And the rest of the logo?
It’s just so bland and generic for such a renowned company, it’s pathetic.
The original logo was like a smack in the face with one of their plastic
cheese squares. It said “BOOM! WE ARE KRAFT” whereas the new
 logo says “We’re a food and drinks giant without any true identity, 
we’re quite bland and very generic, we’re Kraft, ish.”
Five months after releasing the generic logo shown above, Kraft went ahead
and flipped the star to the left and changed the smile from red to blue,
losing it’s nod to the original Kraft logo in the process.
They then split the company in two, forming a new company called
Mondelez, a story for a different article altogether, and the Kraft Foods
Group who adopted an refreshed logo of the initial Kraft brand.
All in all Kraft didn’t appear to put all that much thought into their
 rebrand and marketing efforts and appeared to be “winging it.”
Not good practice from one of the largest companies in the world.
The star burst logo was entirely lost in the split, so at least one good
 thing came from all of the confusion.
Estimated Cost: Sapient Nitro are the agency behind Kraft’s rebrand,
however, no facts and figures are available.

Microsoft

Microsoft Rebrand Before and After
Microsoft are known the world over. Manufacturing and developing
 products such as Windows, Xbox and Bing, they appear to be losing
 a lot of ground on their competitors. The amount of Apple users is on
 the rise, Xbox One messed up their launch campaign to Playstation 4
 and Bing will never ever be a serious threat to Google.
Windows 8 brought the “Metro” look to Windows machines.
The Windows operating system and Windows phone are built
around the Metro style, interactive tiles and bright colours.
When Windows 8 launched, Microsoft rolled out a new branding campaign,
with Bing becoming the latest Microsoft product to be brought in line.
Other Microsoft Brands












My issue with the Microsoft rebrand is not the result they ended up
 with, more the result they could have ended up with. To be fair to
Microsoft, the identity they’ve created is very sleek looking and the
 whole range sits very well together. However, there were better options available.
Anybody that was paying attention to the design community
around the time of the Microsoft relaunch will be familiar with
the work of Andrew Kim, a young designer who put together an
extensive rebranding project of Microsoft’s products and
 services. Mr Kim’s Microsoft proposal actually went live before
Microsoft rebranded. You’ve got to think that his proposal caused shock
waves in the Microsoft office and eventually, Microsoft hired him.
They should have bought his proposal in the process!
Estimated Cost: The Microsoft rebrand was so expansive and took
place over such a long period of time, with multiple conflicting reports
 on the financials, that it’s impossible to calculate the cost of the project.

Pepsi

Pepsi Rebrand Before and After
Pepsi are a brand that are always going to struggle with their identity.
 I’ve already looked into the Coke vs Pepsi debate in another post but
 to summarise, Pepsi’s branding will never come close to the timeless
Coca Cola identity.
The company are no stranger to logo designs, having changed their logo
multiple times over the course of their company history. In 2008,
Pepsi released the latest iteration of their logo, rotating the circular icon
and incorporating a “cheeky smile” into the design. They accompanied
this with a revolting looking typeface, leaving this designer with a less
than sweet taste in his mouth.
“The white stripe on the new logo varies across Pepsi products,

getting wider or thinner depending on product. The design team that spearheaded the
campaign explains that they’re supposed to be “smiles,” but we don’t really see it.” – Forbes Magazine

Estimated Cost: The cost of rebranding the entire Pepsi company is
 said to be $1.2 billion over 3 years with the logo mark for Pepsi
alone coming in at $1 million.

Royal Mail

Royal Mail Rebrand Before and After
In January 2001, Royal Mail (the UK’s biggest mail carrier)
 announced a new company name and brand: Consignia.
What does it even mean? And surely they could have chosen
 a better logo design? Mike Verdin of BBC News called the new
name “A duffer. A howling waste of money.”



Consign;

1. To give over to the care of another; entrust.

2. To turn over permanently to another’s charge or to a
lasting condition; commit irrevocably: “Their desponding
imaginations had already consigned him to a watery grave” (William Hickling Prescott).

3. To deliver (merchandise, for example) for custody or sale.

4. To set apart, as for a special use or purpose; assign.

In theory, the name fits the description of the company perfectly.
 In practice however, people didn’t like it. It was too long, too 
fussy and it hardly rolls off the tongue. There are articles
online titled things like “Consignia: Nine Letters That Spelled Fiasco”
which give an in depth look into the name and what a shambles the rebrand was.
Shortly after one year with the name, the head honchos reverted back to
 Royal Mail and mostly everything was forgiven, Consignia was
forgotten about, except in design blogs where they are still bringing it up over 10 years later.
Estimated Cost: The Consignia name cost £1.5 million to launch in
January 2001. A little over a year later, it cost the company £1 million to
 rebrand themselves again as Royal Mail.

Syfy

Syfy Rebrand Before and After
The SciFi Channel, now known as the SyFy Channel, is a satellite
TV channel that broadcasts science fiction, drama, supernatural,
fantasy, reality, paranormal, wrestling, and horror programming.
In 2009, the SciFi Channel was rebranded as Syfy, a move met with
 outrage from viewers around the world.
By changing the name to Syfy, which remains phonetically identical,
the new brand broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of
imagination-based entertainment including fantasy, paranormal, reality, mystery,
action and adventure, as well as science fiction. It also positions the brand for future
growth by creating an ownable trademark that can travel easily with consumers across
new media and non-linear digital platforms, new international channels and extend into
new business ventures. – Syfy Press Release


By emphasising how the name Syfy is the same as SciFi, they’ve shot

themselves in the foot. At the end of the day, what they’re trying to say is

“We’re the same…but different!” A lot of people will have been

comfortable with the name SciFi, finding solace in being a “sci-fi nerd.”

Consider that target market alienated (no pun intended.)

All in all, this was a fairly shoddy move, and the new visuals look
 dreadful when compared to the fantastically simplistic Saturn logo design.

Tropicana

Tropicana Rebrand Before and After
PepsiCo aren’t renowned for their fantastic branding efforts.
Earlier in this post we talked about PepsiCo’s failure with the
Pepsi brand. Now, we’re going to look at one of the other brands they own,
Tropicana.
At the same time as PepsiCo were failing at rebranding the black fizzy drink,
they were also looking at adjusting and rebranding the other companies they
have, including Mountain Dew and Tropicana. The Mountain Dew rebrand
didn’t end up looking as bad as the rest and has escaped the clutches of this
 post, the Tropicana rebrand however, is a different story altogether.
While I felt the rebrand looked a lot cleaner, it lost it’s identity somewhat.
The orange was gone, it turned into a visual reflection of the liquid inside the
 container. If they were going to do that, they could’ve gone with a plastic window?
 The upper arched curved Tropicana typeface is gone and overall, the packaging
 just looks rather bland and generic.
The sales figures came out to reveal sales of the Tropicana Pure Premium
 line had plummeted by a whopping 20% . On the revelation of the figures,
 PepsiCo reversed their decision to rebrand and reverted the carton design
 to what they had originally.
Estimated Cost: While there are no exact costs for the actual redesign
and rebranding of Tropicana, it is estimated the move cost Tropicana
around $137 million in sales between January 1st and February 22nd.
You might agree or disagree with the companies I’ve featured here,
but what can we learn from all of this? Firstly – your strategy and approach
 to rebranding needs to be well thought out and planned meticulously.
No just doing it for the sake of doing it. And secondly – even the biggest
companies get things wrong. So in future, if something doesn’t go
quite right for you, just think to yourself “well, at least I didn’t spend
millions in the process” (unless you did, then panic.)

0 Response to " 5 Biggest Brand Fails of 2017"

Posting Komentar

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel