Should you rebrand?
Four questions. One honest verdict. Built on the framework from Why most rebrands fail (and the three that don't).
Open the methodology
The verdict combines three diagnostic scores plus one context modifier. From Why most rebrands fail (and the three that don't):
- Why (10 pts): Strategic clarity. A clear strategic shift earns full marks; "to figure out who we are" or "to look more confident" earns zero.
- Owner (10 pts): Execution discipline. A named senior person with rollout budget earns full marks; "we'll figure it out" earns zero.
- Signal (10 pts): Market change. Customers comparing you against a different competitor set earns full marks; "like us better generally" earns zero.
- Trigger: Shapes the pattern. Acquisitions and new markets suggest a Sequencing rebrand. Product/category launches suggest Category Creation. Losing share to insurgents suggests Strategic Reset. No trigger at all suggests a cosmetic refresh, which is the pattern that fails most reliably.
Thresholds:
- 26–30: Strong Yes. Pattern identified. Commission the work.
- 18–25: Yes, conditionally. Fix the weakest item before commissioning.
- 10–17: Wait. Resolve the strategic question first; a rebrand can't make it for you.
- 0–9: Don't rebrand. Whatever you'd spend on it, spend on the strategic decision underneath.
The three working patterns the article identifies — Strategic Reset, Sequencing, Category Creation — earn their fee because the brand expresses a decision the leadership team has already made. The pattern that fails — cosmetic refresh — fails because nothing has changed except the colour palette.
