Seth Godin recently made a post using the recent Jaguar rebrand to illustrate the difference between rebranding and re-logoing
They think a rebrand and a re-logo are the same thing, they’re not. A rebrand happens when you change the promise that you make, and the expectations we have for you. A re-logo is cosmetic. Rebrand at your peril, especially when the old brand is trusted, iconic, historic and connected to a basic human need. It’s a mistake to focus on clicks, not magic.
It is that statement about changing the promise that the company/organization is making that caught my eye. I think there is definitely a case to be made that many arts and cultural organizations have been intentionally working post-pandemic to change their promise and consumer expectations in a more constructive direction.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean a rebrand is required. Especially, as Godin says, if your current brand is already associated with a degree of trust and your efforts are seeking to deepen that trust.
Godin quotes the managing director of Jaguar talking about the need to be relevant, desirable and future-proof for the next 90 years. Godin suggests that statement won’t stand the test of time. Yet there is a lot of conversation in the arts and culture sphere about striving to be relevant. I have been advocating in that direction for close to a decade.
But I have also been saying not everything you can measure necessarily matters for an even longer time. Godin says much the same thing:
Clicks are not purchase intent.
Awareness is not desire.
Gimmicks are not marketing.
Social media followers aren’t following you.
Noise is not information.
Burning down your house draws a crowd, but it’s a lousy way to renovate.
Just because you are getting a measurable response doesn’t necessarily mean you will achieve the results you desire. In fact, there is a danger in becoming so enamored with the attention you are getting that you abandon pursuit of those meaningful results.
