We will tell you how brand correction affects business reputation, whether it is possible to get out of a reputational crisis in this way, and how to understand whether rebranding will work in your particular situation.
In 2021, VKontakte officially chang its name to VK. A new logo, updat interface, shifting the focus from “social network” to “ecosystem” – it would seem like a standard rebranding. But behind this was not only a desire to update, but also a very specific task: to distance itself from old associations and reboot the perception of the brand.
When rebranding is the only chance
Rebranding is an expensive and risky move. Companies often resort to it when the old brand starts to work against them. It is not just a change of packaging, but a strategic move that can either save a reputation or bury it completely. Let’s look at three situations when rebranding becomes the last reasonable option.
Crisis of Trust: When a Name Became Toxic
Some scandals stick to a brand so strongly that any attempt to rehabilitate under the old name is doom. Then rebranding becomes an attempt to break the vicious connection.
A textbook, albeit not the most obvious example, is the transformation of Facebook* into Meta*. By 2021, Facebook’s brand reputation had been noticeably damag by data leak scandals, accusations of disinformation (role in elections, audience radicalization), and legal problems (antitrust lawsuits, pressure from regulators). The company understood that even if it fix its internal processes, the name “Facebook” had already become a symbol of problems. A hard break with the past was ne. After data leaks, disinformation investigations, and lawsuits, the company decid that it was easier to build a new image than to launder the old one.
What exactly was done:
Change of name and visual:
The new Meta brand focus on the “metaverse” – a theme unrelat to the old scandals.
Facebook’s blue color has been replac by a gradient logo symbolizing a “new era.”
Shifting emphasis:
Facebook* became not the main brand, but “one of the products” of Meta* (along with Instagram*, WhatsApp). This ruc the degree of criticism.
Restarting communications:
Instead of an apology, there is a narrative telemarketing data about “building the future” to shift attention from the problems of social networks to technological innovations.
Did the strategy work? In many ways, yes. The frequency of search queries about “Meta scandals” in 2021–2022 was an order of magnitude lower than about “Facebook scandals*.” In addition, the rebranding help to partially distance itself from antitrust lawsuits against Facebook*.
But it cannot be said that the rebranding completely solv the reputational problems. Google kept circulating references to the company’s old scandals for a long time, even before the “meta-era” – the SERM strategy took longer than plann. The audience perceiv the rebranding as an attempt to “escape from problems”. The #DeleteFacebook trend became even stronger against this background. And the epic failure of the Horizon Worlds metaverse and the subsequent layoffs return the focus to the company’s old problems.
So it is important to understand: simply changing the name is not enough. Rebranding after a reputational crisis only works in conjunction with real changes in the company’s policy.
Outdat Image: When a Brand Is Associat with Negative Stereotypes
Sometimes a company works for years to spam data improve its product, but in the eyes of consumers it remains the same “archaic” brand with a bad reputation.
That was the case with KFC: Despite its expanding healthy menu, the chain was long associat exclusively with “unhealthy” fri chicken. Rebranding (including a temporary name change from Kentucky Fri Chicken to KFC) help gradually soften that image.
The key point: Such changes must be back by real change. If McDonald’s suddenly rebrand itself as “Healthy Burgers” but continu to sell Big Macs, it would only invite ridicule.
Mergers and acquisitions: when you ne to hide the “dark past”
After purchasing or merging companies, the new owner often faces the baggage of the old brand, from lawsuits to negative associations.
For example, when the tobacco company Philip Morris decid to distance itself from cigarettes, it rebrand itself and became Altria Group. Formally, to emphasize the diversification of the business. In fact, to ruce direct associations with tobacco.
However, there are pitfalls here too: if rebranding looks like an attempt to hide the truth, it can increase mistrust. This happen, for example, with the private military company Blackwater. Having grown to the scale of a key supplier to the downloadable content: e-books whitepapers Pentagon, it found itself at the center of high-profile bloody scandals during the war in Iraq. So high-profile that it even lost the support of the American government. Trying to “disappear,” the company chang its name to Xe Services — but it did not go further than a simple renaming. The same leader remain at the helm, the mia directly indicat that Xe Services was the former Blackwater. And government agencies, remembering the “dark past,” were in no hurry to cooperate. Then there were more renamings, acquisitions — but the scandalous shadow of Blackwater has not been eras to this day.
So rebranding works as a “lifeline” for reputation only in three cases:
- when the name became an anchor;
- when the image is hopelessly outdat;
- when it is necessary to legally or psychologically distance oneself from the past.
But without honest admission of mistakes and real change, it’s just expensive cosmetics.
Alternative Paths: When Rebranding Won’t Work
In some reputational crises, changing the name and visual identity is not only useless, but can actually make the crisis worse. In such cases, fundamentally different approaches to restoring trust are requir. Let’s look at key scenarios when a company should abandon rebranding in favor of other strategies to save its reputation.
Fresh crisis: when emotions prevail over logic
In the first months after a scandal, the audience is especially sensitive to any actions of the company. Rebranding during this period is likely to be perceiv as an attempt to avoid responsibility. Instead of cosmetic changes, what is requir here is a public admission of mistakes and concrete steps to correct the situation. The focus should be on restoring trust through transparency and real changes in the company’s policies.
Deep-root problems: if the crisis is systemic
When a reputational blow is caus by fundamental problems in the business model or corporate culture, changing the brand will not solve anything. In such cases, a complete transformation of processes is requir, often including a change in leadership and a review of key operating principles. Rebranding without addressing the root causes will only create the appearance of change, which will worsen the situation in the long run.
Strong emotional connection with the brand
For companies whose names have become part of popular culture or have acquir a special symbolic meaning, rebranding is especially risky. The audience may perceive changes as a betrayal of values, which will lead to a loss of loyalty. In such situations, gradual brand evolution while preserving key elements of identity is more effective. It is important to carefully balance between renewal and loyalty to tradition.