Should you simply change your brand... or change everything?
It's a question that almost every business ends up asking. Between the desire to modernize one's image and the temptation to reinvent everything, the border can seem blurred. A brand evolution makes it possible to refresh what already exists and to capitalize on its strengths, while a radical transformation aims to start almost from scratch to meet new challenges. But in practice, the choice is rarely obvious: it involves juggling strategy, business goals, public perception... and sometimes a lot of emotion. Our article aims to help you understand the issues, risks and opportunities behind these two approaches, in order to guide your decision with clarity and impact.
When a company decides to rethink its brand identity, one question always comes up: should you opt for a gradual evolution or for a radical transformation? Evolution consists in capitalizing on what exists by refreshing the image and visual identity, while radical transformation (or revolution) aims to completely rethink the positioning, the logo, and sometimes even the name, to offer something completely new.
Each approach has its advantages and limitations. In reality, most projects fall somewhere in between, with a degree of change tailored to the real needs and strategic goals of the brand.
Whether it's a logo change, a redesign of the visual identity or a global repositioning, a well-thought-out update allows you to remain competitive in a constantly changing market, improve public perception, broaden your target audience and strengthen customer engagement.
This redesign, whether measured or ambitious, also offers the opportunity to attract new talent, to modernize the company's image and to ensure that communication is consistent with the vision and values of the brand. Ultimately, the challenge is not only to change: it is to change or transform identity to ensure long-term success.
Before deciding whether to opt for a radical evolution or transformation, it is essential to identify the triggers that justify a change in visual identity or positioning.
A brand can be relevant at the beginning and then lose its impact over time. This is often the case when a company changes course, expands its offering, or sees its image, name, or message no longer reflect its current products and services. The example of Sendinblue, which has become Brevo, is a good example of how a name change can accompany a new vision and go beyond the limits of initial branding.
Expanding a range can also make the initial identity too restrictive. Some businesses create sub-brands, others prefer to modernize their brand identity to reflect a larger and consistent portfolio.
When a business targets new markets, existing visual identity, communication, and positioning may no longer be enough. In some cases, not changing anything can even lead to legal problems.
Internal changes are also a frequent trigger. A merger, acquisition, or strategic investment is often accompanied by a logo redesign, repositioning, or a complete facelift to ensure consistency, clarity, and engagement with the public and stakeholders.
Declining performance indicators, low awareness, slow growth, high churn rates, can signal that the brand is no longer competitive. Likewise, in sectors highly influenced by trends such as fashion, sport, music or entertainment, the evolution of public values and expectations requires constant adaptation.
The lack of distinctive elements is another strong signal. Developing a unique and recognizable branding makes it possible to stand out and reinforce the perception of the company on the market.
Finally, the restoration of a damaged reputation can involve a strategic overhaul. But be careful: poorly calibrated, this change can be perceived as a “money laundering” operation. If the damage is profound, a complete redesign, managed with authenticity, may become the best option to start again on a solid foundation.
The choice between brand evolution and a redesign of the visual identity can quickly become a field of intense debate. After almost every change in brand identity, the proponents of continuity and those of total transformation clash. Everyone puts forward their arguments, but strong subjectivity can cloud judgment, while strategic and factual analysis would be much more effective.
Being guided by personal preferences or neglecting to analyze the company's image can lead to two opposing mistakes: undercorrection or overcorrection. In both cases, the risk is to damage the brand's perception and compromise its long-term goals.
You also have to take into account the emotional investment of the founders and the teams in place. This commitment is natural, but it should not hamper the necessary strategic change.
And if you are interested, we have written an article for you on How to create a unique, modern and effective logo.
A striking example: the enthusiasm of luxury brands for sans serif fonts and minimalist branding. burberry, Balenciaga, Saint Laurent, Gucci and others have abandoned their distinctive fonts for a more neutral style, which is supposed to work better digitally. Result : a loss of personality and, for some, the need for a new investment to regain a strong identity.
Some evolutions or redesigns are real successes.
Finally, some cases like Wise blur the border: the logo is still close, but the typography and texture bring about a noticeable transformation.
Branding is a complex field. Distinguishing what works, what doesn't and determining the extent of adjustments to make to a brand identity is never easy. However, there are some guidelines that can guide decision making. It all starts with clear goals: why this update? What do you expect from her? The more precisely your goals are defined, the easier it will be to choose the right approach and assess the impact once the project is launched.
Studio Elias has redesigned the identity of Flomodia starting from strategic work around their positioning, their values and their mission.
This clarity must be accompanied by reliable data, because too many developments or redesigns rely on fragile evidence. Measuring brand value is also essential: the stronger it is, the more careful it is. Many overestimate this asset and mistakenly think that longevity rhymes with value.
Distinctive assets also play a decisive role: they fuel recognition among your audience. An update can strengthen them, but removing or altering them can be catastrophic, as the move from HBO Max to Max, which erased decades of fame.
The business life cycle also matters: a start-up can experiment more, while an established brand must take care not to destabilize its bases. In some sectors, category dynamics require particular vigilance. In mass distribution, a simple visual change that was poorly anticipated can push the consumer to think that a product has disappeared.
Success also depends on internal support: a company where management and teams are fully committed to the approach is more likely to succeed. But be careful not to concentrate all the investment at launch: a brand identity requires constant maintenance to remain relevant.
This is exactly where Studio Elias comes in: we support companies in their rebranding projects, helping them to clarify their goals, preserve their distinctive assets and build a solid identity that evolves without losing coherence.
{{cta-1}}
The competitive and cultural environment also influences the perception of your brand. Stay alert to changes, but don't confuse a passing trend with a lasting change. Keep the coherence of your speech: presenting a radical change as a simple “refreshment” risks undermining your approach, as experienced Bumble. Also, avoid making this type of decision in a tense context with your customers or shareholders.
The question of who decides is often underestimated. Some developments fail because we think, wrongly, that only management should validate from the start. In addition, pay attention to external perceptions: the Austrade, for example, had to remove its new symbol in the middle of a pandemic, because its acacia flower evoked the COVID-19 virus.
Once the new visual identity is launched, support it and measure its effects. Initial criticisms are common, but if your analysis, strategy, and execution are solid, they will wear off. The example ofAirbnb in 2014 shows it well: after a very mixed reception, time proved the relevance of its Belo symbol.
Finally, keep in mind that a brand is a long-term asset. Tangible benefits: prices, margins, profitability, can take years to materialize. An update is almost never perfect on the first day: the important thing is to measure, adjust and refine to optimize your strategy.
Most brand changes are about evolution. It's understandable: people are attached to their bearings and change is frightening. However, the majority of brands would benefit from being more daring. Too many of them are content to be “correct”, timid, reactive, or simply sufficient, when they should aim for excellence. This is often a symptom of a lack of leadership, vision, and deep understanding of their market.
In the past, a discreet logo and a banal positioning could suffice, as competition was limited. Today, digital technology is disrupting all sectors. In this context, staying in your comfort zone is like gradually fading away. The example of Tropicana is telling: 15 years ago, a poorly calibrated redesign aroused massive rejection, forcing the brand to return to its previous identity. But with a declining juice market and a 30.7% drop in sales last year (source Nielsen), simply going back in time will probably not be enough.
Neither evolution nor revolution is in itself good or bad. But it's clear that too few brands are taking bold enough steps to become leaders in their category. Many are slowly dying out for lack of strategic courage. At Studio Elias, our position tends to be clear: think bigger, act with confidence, and build brands that perform. In a constantly changing market, you have two options: adapt... or disappear.
