Rebranding is the word of the moment in food and beverage. From Pepsi to Pringles, brands across the food and beverage space are changing their look and tone. In fact, a study by marketing firm Bynder, found that 82% of marketers had recently taken part in rebranding projects.
Added to that, 74% of the S&P 100 companies rebranded within their first seven years of operation, according to brand consulting firm Landor.
Why are so many brands rebranding?
Standing out from the food and beverage crowd is tough. And, with the rise of social media, it’s getting harder and harder. Marketing chatter is louder, brand choices broader, and expectations higher.
So what can food and beverage brands do? Well, the answer seems to be overwhelmingly, to rebrand.
According to Bynder, the most common reason for rebranding, is to update brand identity, giving it a fresh new look and appealing to current consumer fashions and trends.
Other reasons for rebranding include repositioning a brand in the market, reflecting a change in target audience, or addressing negative consumer perceptions.
And it’s not just about external factors influencing business decisions, employee opinion also plays a major role.
“Internal fatigue is a factor,” says Gareth Turner, director of FMCG marketing firm, Big Black Door. “Marketing teams spend so much time immersed in their brands that they get bored with it long before the market does.”
Biggest rebranding trends
While all brands would like to think their new look is entirely unique and unlike any other, there are certainly trends emerging in the current wave of rebrands.
“Visual identities are cleaner, with less clutter and more flexible assets for digital channels,” says Big Black Door’s Turner. “Tone of voice is shifting towards greater transparency and warmth as brands want to sound more human, less corporate.”
There’s also, says Turner, a move towards “heritage with a twist”, modernising classic brands without losing their roots.
“I’ve seen more soft, lifestyle-led branding – pastel tones, clean typography, and nature-inspired storytelling," he adds
Examples of this include Alpen’s recent refresh. Owned by Weetabix, the brand synonymous with muesli introduced a warmer, cleaner look, rooted in a strategy to connect better with adult consumers and reinforce relevance.
However, Turner cautions that this type of rebrand only worked because it sharpened the brand’s role and built on existing brand assets.
“It’s a delicate balance to get right,” says Turner. And there are certainly brands that have been less successful.
“Manomasa’s redesign removed many of the flavourful, high-energy visuals that helped it stand out in a crowded category, resulting in a brand that looks more restrained, but arguably less memorable.”
Similarly, Tropicana’s 2009 rebrand dropped distinctive assets, such as the orange-with-a-straw visual, resulting in a huge drop in sales before they reversed it.
“That wasn’t a bad design decision,” says Turner. “It was a failure to appreciate how important consistent, recognisable visual cues are at the point of purchase.”
Another issue is that many rebrands are driven by agencies with “sector expertise” leading to sameness, rather than unique and bold styles.
“A good rebrand doesn’t just follow the category trends. It makes the brand meaningfully distinctive,” says Turner.
Should all FMCGs jump on the rebrand-wagon?
The answer to whether all brands should rebrand is, of course, no. Brands should only rebrand if they need to and they should be very careful in doing so.
“The risk is that companies throw out assets that they’ve spent years and significant budget building,” says Turner. “A rebrand resets the clock on awareness and mental availability – and unless your current brand is actively holding you back, that’s a big price to pay and a huge risk to take."
Spoiler alert - a branding agency has a vested interest in the solution being a rebrand
Gareth Turner, Big Black Door
This is especially true when cost is taken into consideration. Because, make no mistake, rebrands are expensive and take a significant amount of time.
“The creative cost is just the start,” says Turner. “Brands also need to consider packaging write-offs, the cost of printing plates, stock transitions, updating assets across retail and DTC, team training, buyer education, and potential confusion for shoppers. For any business, that’s a serious operational load.”
In other words, unless a brand is solving a genuine growth barrier, such as consumer rejection at the shelf, the upside often isn’t worth the total commercial cost and risk.
What should brands consider before rebranding?
Brands should consider their ‘why’ before taking the plunge and rebranding.
What problem is being solved? Is it really the brand’s identity that’s preventing growth, or is it something more foundational such as unclear positioning, lack of product differentiation, or pricing strategy?
In many cases, it would be better for a brand to refine what has already been built, rather than starting again.
“Often, a brand doesn’t need reinventing, it needs refocusing,” says Turner. “This is where an external perspective is invaluable. Be careful who you’re asking though. Spoiler alert - a branding agency has a vested interest in the solution being a rebrand.”
Finally, to make a rebrand successful, brands should look to build on what made the brand successful in the first place and it needs to be immediately recognisable to loyal customers. That means keeping what works, reinforcing distinctive assets, and building from a clear strategy.
“Most shoppers won’t study the pack or read a brand’s story,” says Turner “The job of design is to make it easy to notice a product and make the customer want to buy it. Again and again.”
