Rebranding: when to do it and when to choose another brand move

A rebranding is justified in only two scenarios: when the product has changed completely and the brand didn't keep up, or when both product and brand need to change for the business to survive. In every other case, there's a less risky, cheaper move: brand management, revitalization, or repositioning. This guide explains the four possible moves a brand can make, when to use each one, and what the Tropicana, Dunkin', Havaianas, and Jaguar cases teach about the cost of getting this choice wrong.

Summary

• There are four possible moves for a brand: brand management, revitalization, repositioning, and rebranding, in increasing order of risk.
• Rebranding is the last resort: a virtually irreversible decision, justified only when the product has changed completely or when brand and product need to change for the business to survive.
• Continuous brand management, less glamorous and more laborious, solves the vast majority of problems without radical change.
• Revitalizations tend to underestimate recognition at the point of sale: in the Tropicana case, sales fell about 20% after the 2009 packaging redesign, and PepsiCo reverted to the previous design in under two months.
• Repositioning shifts the strategic direction without abandoning the identity: Dunkin' dropped "Donuts" from its name, in a change announced in 2018 and implemented in 2019, to establish itself as a beverage and convenience brand, with coffee at the center of its value proposition.
• Every successful rebranding respects the brand's essence: Havaianas' turnaround in the 1990s transformed its positioning without changing the product.
• Jaguar's rebranding, launched in November 2024, is still under evaluation: the first car of the new phase, the Type 01, is set to be revealed in October 2026 and to reach the market in 2027.

The four possible moves a brand can make

Much of the confusion around rebranding comes from the failure to distinguish between moves that are very different from one another. What you can do with a brand falls into four possible cases, and each answers a specific problem, with its own level of risk.

Revitalization and repositioning are often confused with rebranding, and that confusion has a cost: each move calls for a different diagnosis, investment, and risk management.

Why so many brand changes start for the wrong reason

A phrase attributed to a marketing executive sums up the problem: almost every new marketing director does a rebranding when arriving at a company, treating the business like a newly bought house that needs to be decorated to their own taste.

In practice, many change moves follow a predictable logic: the manager doesn't know what to do with the brand, decides to change something to buy time, blames the lack of results on the change that hasn't happened yet, buys more time, applies the change, and argues that results take a while to appear. A full cycle can consume a year without creating value. With the natural turnover of these roles, whoever suggested the change usually leaves looking like a visionary, while the rest of the marketing and sales team inherits the course correction.

The lack of structured training in the field feeds a confirmation bias: the manager comes to believe that the business problem lies in what they can control most easily, like the visual identity, and not in the harder variables, like product, distribution, and value proposition.

Brand management: the move that solves most cases

Brand management is the ongoing work of keeping the brand relevant and the business running, reinforcing the current positioning across every touchpoint, with the existing visual identity. It's the least glamorous part of the discipline and also the most effective: understanding the consumer, building a value proposition that stands out from the competition, and structuring a plan so that proposition reaches those it needs to reach solves the vast majority of brand problems.

Good brand management involves the innovation pipeline, the evolution of communication within the current positioning, monitoring the operation's financial health (the P&L, the profit and loss statement), and calendar planning. Taking the brand to another level without changing everything radically is hard, slow work, and precisely for that reason it tends to be passed over in favor of more visible changes with an immediate effect on internal perception.

Revitalization: when to update the identity (and when not to)

Revitalization updates the visual identity while keeping the positioning. After brand management, it's probably the most common move, and the usual justification is that the brand "is getting old" and needs an aesthetic update.

The argument is weak because it assumes the consumer is as tired of the current identity as the internal team, which lives with it every day. Purchase frequency in most categories is relatively low: the consumer has far less contact with the brand than the team imagines. In general, they aren't tired of the product's appearance. They're used to it, and it's that familiarity that helps them find the brand on the shelf.

The Tropicana case: the cost of giving up recognition

The classic example is Tropicana. In January 2009, PepsiCo launched new packaging for Tropicana Pure Premium juice in the North American market, replacing the iconic image of the orange with a straw with a more minimalist design. Consumers stopped locating the product on the shelf, and sales fell about 20% in the following weeks, a loss estimated at around 30 million dollars according to the trade press. In under two months, the company announced a return to the previous packaging.

The pattern repeats in other packaging-change cases in fast-moving consumer goods: when the redesign removes the visual codes buyers use to locate the product, volume drops, even if the new packaging is considered more attractive in qualitative research. Stated preference in research does not predict purchase behavior on the shelf.

When revitalization is justified

Three situations usually justify a revitalization:

1. Lack of positioning articulation: the identity doesn't connect with the brand's current positioning.
2. Aging customer base: the brand needs to enter the repertoire of new generations of buyers.
3. Genuine aging: the identity genuinely no longer connects with the category's current context.

Even in these cases, the transition must preserve the distinctive assets (colors, symbols, shapes, and other recognition codes) that ensure the consumer keeps finding the brand.

Repositioning: new direction, same identity

Repositioning happens when the brand keeps practically the same visual identity but changes its strategic direction. Two reasons usually motivate it:

1. The brand starts to face commercial problems with its current proposition.
2. The points of differentiation become points of parity: competitors have caught up on the differentiators and the consumer has realized there are other choices.

Brands reposition to gain commercial breadth, reach new audiences, or capture new consumption occasions. The Dunkin' Donuts case illustrates the move well. Pressured by competition from Starbucks, the chain dropped "Donuts" from its name, in a change announced in September 2018 and implemented in January 2019, to establish itself as a beverage and convenience brand, with coffee at the center of the proposition, alongside snacks and sweets. The stated goal was to broaden consumption occasions and the addressable market, no longer being just a donut brand.

The important detail: despite the name change, the characteristic orange and pink colors and typography were kept. This is a repositioning built on existing visual assets, not a rebranding.

Rebranding: the last resort

Rebranding is the complete change: positioning, visual identity, and, in some cases, the name. It should be treated as the brand manager's last resort, because it's a virtually irreversible decision. Once made, there's no way to restore the associations built over decades.

Only two scenarios truly justify a rebranding:

The non-negotiable condition: respect the essence

A brand is, above all, reputation. The stronger the brand, the more consistent the relationship between its promise and its delivery. Behind that reputation are attributes, values, and principles that have worked, since the founding, as the basis of everything the brand does. A legitimate rebranding reinterprets that essence for a new context, rather than discarding it.

The problem is that the essence is also subject to interpretation. In many cases, whoever founded the brand is no longer around to say what they meant. There's shareholder pressure, political pressure, and, at times, personal preferences of the leadership. If people can read the same law in different ways, the same goes for a brand. Hence the practical recommendation: faced with the temptation of a rebranding, it's worth reconsidering and exhausting the less risky alternatives first.

Havaianas is the Brazilian example of a successful deep transformation. In the 1990s, with Alpargatas in financial difficulty, the brand went from being seen as a cheap, commoditized flip-flop to becoming a fashion item. The turnaround began in 1994, with the launch of Havaianas Top, inspired by Rio surfers' habit of flipping the colored sole upward, and advanced with vibrant colors, limited editions, and celebrity campaigns, reaching international fashion runways by the end of the decade. The key point: the product, the rubber, and the essence stayed the same. Everything around it changed.

The Jaguar case: a rebranding under evaluation

In November 2024, Jaguar presented a completely new identity: it retired the historic feline symbols, adopted a mostly lowercase typographic logo, and launched the "Copy Nothing" campaign without showing a single car. Two weeks later, it revealed the electric Type 00 concept car at Miami Art Week. The company described the move as a complete reset, backed by the decision to abandon the previous lineup and be reborn as an ultra-luxury electric brand, with lower volume and a new audience.

The transition period's numbers were harsh. Production of models like the XE, XF, F-Type, E-Pace, and I-Pace ended in 2024, before any replacement reached the market. In the fiscal year ended March 2025, sales fell 27.5%, to about 48 thousand units, and there were months when the brand's new-car registrations in Europe numbered in the low dozens. A significant part of that drop, however, is a deliberate result of the strategy: the company itself estimates that only about 15% of current customers are expected to return, and says it is seeking an entirely new customer base.

As of July 2026, the verdict remains open. The production car derived from the concept, named the Type 01, has had its reveal postponed twice and is scheduled for October 2026, in New York, with a market launch expected in the first half of 2027. The case illustrates two classic rebranding risks: the long gap between announcing the new brand and having a product available to buy, and the tension between a total reset and respect for the essence. A definitive assessment will only be possible once there's a product on sale and real demand data.

Quick definitions

• Brand management: ongoing work to reinforce the current positioning across every touchpoint, with the existing identity.
• Revitalization: updating the visual identity without changing the positioning.
• Repositioning: changing the strategic direction while keeping practically the same visual identity.
• Rebranding: complete change of positioning and identity, possibly including the name.
• Point of parity: an attribute that no longer differentiates the brand because competitors have matched it.
• Distinctive assets: elements like colors, symbols, and packaging that make the brand instantly recognizable.

How to apply it

The starting point is the diagnosis, not the solution. Before deciding to change the brand, it's worth answering: is the problem in the brand or in the business? The recommended practical sequence is as follows:

1. Start with brand management. A well-understood consumer, a clear value proposition, and a consistent activation plan solve the vast majority of problems, without the cost of rebuilding recognition.
2. Consider revitalization only with evidence. An identity disconnected from the positioning, an aging customer base, or genuinely dated aesthetics are valid reasons. "The team is tired of the look" is not. Preserve the distinctive assets in the transition.
3. Evaluate repositioning when the proposition loses traction. If the differentiators have become parity or the addressable market has shrunk, changing direction while keeping the identity tends to cost less than starting from scratch.
4. Reserve rebranding for the two extreme scenarios. A product that has changed completely or a business that needs to change to survive. Even in these cases, anchor the change in the brand's essence.
5. Test with the right method. Stated preference in qualitative research does not predict purchase behavior. Before swapping visual codes, measure the impact on recognition and on finding the product.

Sources: The Branding Journal, "What to Learn from Tropicana's Packaging Redesign Failure?" (2015); Dunkin' Brands, "Welcome to Dunkin': Dunkin' Donuts Reveals New Brand Identity" (official press release, 2018); Autocar, "Confirmed: Jaguar to reveal Type 01 in New York in October" (2026).