Chris Brogan, Shannon Paul, Mack Collier, Beth Harte and a host of other people have been riffing on Pepsi‘s recent logo overhaul and their rollout of the reveal to 25 select bloggers via unconventional means. And just yesterday, Chris posted again about his feelings that it was time for Pepsi to change their logo because they had to keep it fresh. There’s a fair amount of people on either side of the fence about whether or not they’ve done a good thing for their customers and their brand.
This touched a nerve with me that I haven’t thought about in a bit. While we all (hopefully) know that a logo does not a brand make, it’s my stance that brands are as important for your internal audience as they are your customers.
If you’ve ever worked for or with a company that has a lackluster brand, you can feel it down to your very toes. You know that something is missing, and it’s hard to get revved up about what you stand for, if even you can understand that in the first place. Weak or outdated brands do absolutely nothing to empower or inspire the engine charged with driving them. And they can stagnate, or worse, fail.
Refreshing a brand can do a few things for your inside teams, including:
- Reminding you what you’re doing this for, because a logo change requires revisiting your brand tenets
- Getting new people in the organization better acquainted with your brand’s history and future
- Energizing your people around your vision for the company and its personality
- Educating them about the trickle down effect of a brand and all the ways that it affects operations and communications
Changing a logo is a cosmetic (albeit symbolic) thing, and unless you radically change it, chances are your audience will notice but not change their buying decisions dramatically. After all, the brand is not your logo – it is a sum of the impressions and experiences that your customers and clients have with your company. But a logo change is a signal of evolution, a catalyst, if you will. It can be a visible banner to hold up to your internal teams that says “hey, we’re taking a good look in the mirror” and sometimes that can be a really good thing.
Am I advocating for letting your logo change slip by unnoticed to the public? Absolutely not. I think you’d do well to bring your customers into the fold too, and take care to explain and outline the changes to them, especially if they’re more touchups than overhauls that could be easily missed otherwise. And do I think you should change logos like you do pants? Heck no. It’s a decision that affects many things, and it shouldn’t be taken lightly.
But it’s important to remember that your home team is an important part of your brand. If you’re going to undertake a refresh, it can and should be as much about championing your brand inside your own walls as out. We would all do well to build our brands more carefully within our companies. Because if you don’t have evangelists and excitement inside your doors to carry your brand forth, your logo isn’t worth a fig, anyway.
Check out the video about how Pepsi outlines the evolution of their brand. Do you feel ownership of your company brand? What does a logo change signify to you?
This point definitely hits home Amber. I’ve seen a situation where an entity was branded with a new logo/tagline without getting much input from the internal customers, us. The redesign launched of course, but not without an overall resistance and displeasure internally. The result – employees were less fired up about the product and seemingly lost a bit of their passion because their feelings weren’t accounted for in this change.
Some companies don’t realize that their employees are their customers too and let that fall to the wayside to their own rebranding/designing agenda. But if you don’t get backing internally, what’s to say it won’t do the same to your external community?
Sonny Gills last blog post..Becoming a Champion
This point definitely hits home Amber. I’ve seen a situation where an entity was branded with a new logo/tagline without getting much input from the internal customers, us. The redesign launched of course, but not without an overall resistance and displeasure internally. The result – employees were less fired up about the product and seemingly lost a bit of their passion because their feelings weren’t accounted for in this change.
Some companies don’t realize that their employees are their customers too and let that fall to the wayside to their own rebranding/designing agenda. But if you don’t get backing internally, what’s to say it won’t do the same to your external community?
Sonny Gills last blog post..Becoming a Champion
Spot on, Amber! A brand is not a superficial marketing tool, it’s a internal compass of purpose.
Jay Ehrets last blog post..Spot On! This Week’s Best Marketing Advice
Spot on, Amber! A brand is not a superficial marketing tool, it’s a internal compass of purpose.
Jay Ehrets last blog post..Spot On! This Week’s Best Marketing Advice
Fabulous post Amber! You are so on point. The internal customer too frequently gets bypassed or ignored. We all need a fresh reminder of why we do what we do every now and then. And if you have a sales team, sometimes a logo change or new slogan can give them that extra boost needed. As long as it’s not a “flavor-of-the-week” approach and your efforts follow the purpose and direction of the company a little change can be very positive. I’m a proponent of kaizen and innovation, and if a logo change can help efforts to improve your brand internally or externally then it is a great move.
Fabulous post Amber! You are so on point. The internal customer too frequently gets bypassed or ignored. We all need a fresh reminder of why we do what we do every now and then. And if you have a sales team, sometimes a logo change or new slogan can give them that extra boost needed. As long as it’s not a “flavor-of-the-week” approach and your efforts follow the purpose and direction of the company a little change can be very positive. I’m a proponent of kaizen and innovation, and if a logo change can help efforts to improve your brand internally or externally then it is a great move.
Or just maybe the change was a pretext to kick-start conversation on a brand that is searching for ways to compete against a competitor that is winning the “channels” battle!
If so, it appears to be working!
Frank Martins last blog post..Wordslaughter
Or just maybe the change was a pretext to kick-start conversation on a brand that is searching for ways to compete against a competitor that is winning the “channels” battle!
If so, it appears to be working!
Frank Martins last blog post..Wordslaughter
Amber, this comment hits home for me: “If you’ve ever worked for or with a company that has a lackluster brand, you can feel it down to your very toes.”
You are spot on with this emotion.
A good marketer/social media professional knows when something is off-kilter and how to fix it. And it’s not always solved with a new logo, direct mail campaign or PR stunt.
I suspect that any marketer who walks around and asks internal folks what their perception is of the the company’s “brand” (who, what, how, etc.) would be shocked. Because guess what, it’s the employee’s emotional aftertaste and what *their* perception or definition is. That can’t be controlled (either). And it’s the employees perception that gets delivered outside the four-corporate walls (esp. if that person has interactions with customers).
Companies need to read this post…and soon.
Conversations inside and outside are paramount in moving the needle when it comes to perceptions of a brand.
Great thought leadership here Amber.
Beth Hartes last blog post..Passion.
Amber, this comment hits home for me: “If you’ve ever worked for or with a company that has a lackluster brand, you can feel it down to your very toes.”
You are spot on with this emotion.
A good marketer/social media professional knows when something is off-kilter and how to fix it. And it’s not always solved with a new logo, direct mail campaign or PR stunt.
I suspect that any marketer who walks around and asks internal folks what their perception is of the the company’s “brand” (who, what, how, etc.) would be shocked. Because guess what, it’s the employee’s emotional aftertaste and what *their* perception or definition is. That can’t be controlled (either). And it’s the employees perception that gets delivered outside the four-corporate walls (esp. if that person has interactions with customers).
Companies need to read this post…and soon.
Conversations inside and outside are paramount in moving the needle when it comes to perceptions of a brand.
Great thought leadership here Amber.
Beth Hartes last blog post..Passion.
@Sonny Internal passion is so key. It’s funny how we’ll protect our customer relationships, but our internal ones are somehow more expendable. It’s important that our teams share our passion for our brand, and if they don’t, we need to figure out why.
@Jay I am SO stealing that line. Good stuff.
@Mark Innovation is the driver, isn’t it? And while branding is a serious piece of the puzzle, we owe it to our marketing efforts to keep them in line with the pace, style, and culture of our company.
@Frank The buzz has continued, hasn’t it? I’d love to know if internal culture had anything to do with Pepsi’s decision to do this. Because it’s not a seismic shift in their brand (more like a tweak), I’d love to know what prompted it.
@Beth The brand is far, far deeper than anything superficial, isn’t it? The communications are the symbols, but the brand is woven into a company’s very culture. And if that’s not in sync with what the public sees, you get disconnects that aren’t easily repaired. If our people are truly our best assets, shouldn’t we be making sure that the feeling is mutual?
I agree with everything in this post, Amber. No question. You’ve hit on a very important point with internal branding – one which doesn’t get enough attention.
But in this particular case, once the novelty of the logo change is gone, then what?
How long does anyone – crew or passengers – stay excited about the new coat of paint on the same old ship? Especially if it doesn’t make the ship faster, more enjoyable or more valuable in some way?
Pepsi could have done something to give the logo redesign meaning. To actually attract customers. To give people (not just marketing folks like us) something tangible and sticky to talk about. In other words, Pepsi could have done something to give its brand renewed meaning/purpose, and then used the logo redesign to express that new vision to its employees and the world.
Then maybe so many of us wouldn’t be talking about how Pepsi needed to do “something” to compete against Coca Cola – a company which hasn’t changed its logo all that much over the decades and STILL owns the market. Maybe there comes a time when having changed your logo too many times starts having a negative impact on a brand? Maybe people stop caring. And maybe people start realizing that perhaps a company like Pepsi is completely out of new ideas, which isn’t good for the stagnant brand behind the fresh new logo.
Only marketing and advertising bloggers care, which is not a good thing. Honestly, if it weren’t for you, Brogan, Dave (Armano) and Mack, I wouldn’t have spent more than a few minutes thinking about it.
Don’t get me wrong: I like the new package design, the logo isn’t bad, and yeah, pepsi needs to do something to gain some market share, but I just can’t help but sit here and wonder “that’s it?”
Of all the other things the masterminds at Pepsi could have done in addition to strengthen their brand and gain favor with customers, they put all their eggs in the logo redesign basket? It’s kind of sad to see so much wasted potential and lack of business initiative from a brand as huge as Pepsi.
I’m sorry Amber, and I hate to play the grinch figure in this very upbeat discussion, but this seems to me like a classic case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
I still think you rock though. 😉
Cheers,
Olivier
olivier Blanchards last blog post..Understanding Marketing 2.0: A primer for companies looking for better media channels in a tough economy
I agree with everything in this post, Amber. No question. You’ve hit on a very important point with internal branding – one which doesn’t get enough attention.
But in this particular case, once the novelty of the logo change is gone, then what?
How long does anyone – crew or passengers – stay excited about the new coat of paint on the same old ship? Especially if it doesn’t make the ship faster, more enjoyable or more valuable in some way?
Pepsi could have done something to give the logo redesign meaning. To actually attract customers. To give people (not just marketing folks like us) something tangible and sticky to talk about. In other words, Pepsi could have done something to give its brand renewed meaning/purpose, and then used the logo redesign to express that new vision to its employees and the world.
Then maybe so many of us wouldn’t be talking about how Pepsi needed to do “something” to compete against Coca Cola – a company which hasn’t changed its logo all that much over the decades and STILL owns the market. Maybe there comes a time when having changed your logo too many times starts having a negative impact on a brand? Maybe people stop caring. And maybe people start realizing that perhaps a company like Pepsi is completely out of new ideas, which isn’t good for the stagnant brand behind the fresh new logo.
Only marketing and advertising bloggers care, which is not a good thing. Honestly, if it weren’t for you, Brogan, Dave (Armano) and Mack, I wouldn’t have spent more than a few minutes thinking about it.
Don’t get me wrong: I like the new package design, the logo isn’t bad, and yeah, pepsi needs to do something to gain some market share, but I just can’t help but sit here and wonder “that’s it?”
Of all the other things the masterminds at Pepsi could have done in addition to strengthen their brand and gain favor with customers, they put all their eggs in the logo redesign basket? It’s kind of sad to see so much wasted potential and lack of business initiative from a brand as huge as Pepsi.
I’m sorry Amber, and I hate to play the grinch figure in this very upbeat discussion, but this seems to me like a classic case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
I still think you rock though. 😉
Cheers,
Olivier
olivier Blanchards last blog post..Understanding Marketing 2.0: A primer for companies looking for better media channels in a tough economy
Olivier, never apologize for bringing more perspective. I value that immensely.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, actually. My point is that the logo change can be a catalyst, but it sure as heck isn’t the endgame. It’s symbolic of something, but it’s always up to the company to make sure that they are making that but a small piece of a more strategic move. Otherwise, it’s all fluff. And you’re right. Once the shine of the new toy wears off, there had better be something of substance to keep people engaged and excited.
I can’t pretend to know what’s going on in their heads because they haven’t shared that, and the discussion around it so far has been about the cosmetic part. I’d love to see and hear more from Pepsi about how they’re planning to make this a move with some teeth.I agree they’ve missed some opportunities to talk about this in a larger framework, and will be eagerly watching to see if this is a flash in the pan, or the start of a raging wildfire.
Hi Amber, I have a bit of differing opinion about this whole Pepsi logo thing, and like Oliver, I don’t want to come across negative. I liked Beth Hartes recommendation the best, which was to involve the Pepsi fans, and create an opportunity to create evangelists and have meaningful conversations with their best customers. The fact that there are Pepsi clubs and collectors is amazing. I do value internal feedback and how a brand makes folks feel, however I do not think that getting a lot of feedback from up and down the internal food chain is valuable. My oldest son Bret is a Pepsico employee, a route driver and delivers upwards of (900) plus cases of Pepsi product everyday. He is selling their product day in and day out. I guarantee you his perception of the Pepsi brand and the marketing executive perception would be diametrically different, and while I greatly value someone like my son’s opinion, he isn’t and shouldn’t be in a position to make recommendations as to a company’s brand. Instead, why don’t companies, be it Pepsi or any other focus on creating a Remarkable product and a Remarkable experience. To that, folks like Bret could add true value. It can be anything from soup to nuts in the product life cycle, from packaging, to how product is handled, etc. To have a company as large as Pepsico, with that many employees, Remarkable should be flowing constantly if there were channels organized to foster that. Then, they would also be creating internal evangelists who would Rock the House.
Eric Browns last blog post..Brand Checkup; What do They Think?
Hi Amber, I have a bit of differing opinion about this whole Pepsi logo thing, and like Oliver, I don’t want to come across negative. I liked Beth Hartes recommendation the best, which was to involve the Pepsi fans, and create an opportunity to create evangelists and have meaningful conversations with their best customers. The fact that there are Pepsi clubs and collectors is amazing. I do value internal feedback and how a brand makes folks feel, however I do not think that getting a lot of feedback from up and down the internal food chain is valuable. My oldest son Bret is a Pepsico employee, a route driver and delivers upwards of (900) plus cases of Pepsi product everyday. He is selling their product day in and day out. I guarantee you his perception of the Pepsi brand and the marketing executive perception would be diametrically different, and while I greatly value someone like my son’s opinion, he isn’t and shouldn’t be in a position to make recommendations as to a company’s brand. Instead, why don’t companies, be it Pepsi or any other focus on creating a Remarkable product and a Remarkable experience. To that, folks like Bret could add true value. It can be anything from soup to nuts in the product life cycle, from packaging, to how product is handled, etc. To have a company as large as Pepsico, with that many employees, Remarkable should be flowing constantly if there were channels organized to foster that. Then, they would also be creating internal evangelists who would Rock the House.
Eric Browns last blog post..Brand Checkup; What do They Think?
For the most part this was Pepsi’s rather lame attempt to replicate the 31 Days of Dragon. HP did it first, they did it well and so it seems the team at Pepsi decided to follow along and see if they could co-opt “A List” bloggers into talking about their brand, which of course they did. If that was the aim, then their Pepsi 25 campaign was a success. Unfortunately for Pepsi the consumers of both their product and “A list” bloggers comments are more discerning. Pepsi need to find a different and better way to engage their audience. Simply sending cases of Pepsi to bloggers isn’t going to cut it. A year ago – maybe, but now, no way. What should they do ? Engage, engage, engage. Don’t rely on the current hot list, from whatever your source is, list leaders come and go but your customers are constant if you engage.
I really like that you have your article from the perspective that you have. It brings home the fact that companies don’t own their brand, it belongs to their customers and their employees, the worth of the brand is in their hands.
Simon Salts last blog post..Twitter for Small Business
For the most part this was Pepsi’s rather lame attempt to replicate the 31 Days of Dragon. HP did it first, they did it well and so it seems the team at Pepsi decided to follow along and see if they could co-opt “A List” bloggers into talking about their brand, which of course they did. If that was the aim, then their Pepsi 25 campaign was a success. Unfortunately for Pepsi the consumers of both their product and “A list” bloggers comments are more discerning. Pepsi need to find a different and better way to engage their audience. Simply sending cases of Pepsi to bloggers isn’t going to cut it. A year ago – maybe, but now, no way. What should they do ? Engage, engage, engage. Don’t rely on the current hot list, from whatever your source is, list leaders come and go but your customers are constant if you engage.
I really like that you have your article from the perspective that you have. It brings home the fact that companies don’t own their brand, it belongs to their customers and their employees, the worth of the brand is in their hands.
Simon Salts last blog post..Twitter for Small Business
Let’s see if Pepsi follows this up with something good. (Crossing my fingers.) 🙂
olivier Blanchards last blog post..Understanding Marketing 2.0: A primer for companies looking for better media channels in a tough economy
Let’s see if Pepsi follows this up with something good. (Crossing my fingers.) 🙂
olivier Blanchards last blog post..Understanding Marketing 2.0: A primer for companies looking for better media channels in a tough economy
I enjoy your posts, Amber, and this is no exception. My time is spent working with clients to engage employees and ultimately drive behavior. It’s great to see you give a little love to important of the audience within the walls.
Employees drive results, and employees are consumers. They need to be motivated, persuaded, engaged. They respond to a well-crafted experience just like any other consumer audience. And they respond to a poor experience just as external customers: At worst they revolt, at best they just don’t “buy.”
As you and others note, disconnects between how the brand plays outside and how it’s lived inside can quickly drive that poor experience.
I enjoy your posts, Amber, and this is no exception. My time is spent working with clients to engage employees and ultimately drive behavior. It’s great to see you give a little love to important of the audience within the walls.
Employees drive results, and employees are consumers. They need to be motivated, persuaded, engaged. They respond to a well-crafted experience just like any other consumer audience. And they respond to a poor experience just as external customers: At worst they revolt, at best they just don’t “buy.”
As you and others note, disconnects between how the brand plays outside and how it’s lived inside can quickly drive that poor experience.
Amber, apologies for being a comment hog, but I wanted to add my two cents in response to @EricBrown’s comment.
@EricBrown, it’s just my opinion, but I would totally tap into your son for his opinion. Why? Because I’d hedge a bet, unless your son is totally introverted, that he chats from time-to-time with his customers. And in those conversations over time, he probably knows why they order the quantities customers do, how they feel about the branding, and how they feel about Pepsi’s service, etc. Is this valuable from a brand perspective? Maybe not on the surface, but that kind of feedback/data sure does infer a lot and can be useful to create internal evangelists like you suggested. Just imagine how empowered an employee would feel if they knew that their external and internal conversations help shaped a product or service. 🙂
Amber, apologies for being a comment hog, but I wanted to add my two cents in response to @EricBrown’s comment.
@EricBrown, it’s just my opinion, but I would totally tap into your son for his opinion. Why? Because I’d hedge a bet, unless your son is totally introverted, that he chats from time-to-time with his customers. And in those conversations over time, he probably knows why they order the quantities customers do, how they feel about the branding, and how they feel about Pepsi’s service, etc. Is this valuable from a brand perspective? Maybe not on the surface, but that kind of feedback/data sure does infer a lot and can be useful to create internal evangelists like you suggested. Just imagine how empowered an employee would feel if they knew that their external and internal conversations help shaped a product or service. 🙂
Amber,
Enjoyed the post. I have seen a rebrand done right and I have seen it done wrong from an internal standpoint. When it goes wrong you leave the people on your team feeling confused and out of touch with what is going on in the organization. While I agree that you shouldn’t and don’t need everyone’s agreement on the direction. That doesn’t mean that you don’t get your key people on the same page so that they can communicate that throughout the organization so that everyone is seeing the same vision. This is particularly critical in a large organization.
Brandon Allens last blog post..
Amber,
Enjoyed the post. I have seen a rebrand done right and I have seen it done wrong from an internal standpoint. When it goes wrong you leave the people on your team feeling confused and out of touch with what is going on in the organization. While I agree that you shouldn’t and don’t need everyone’s agreement on the direction. That doesn’t mean that you don’t get your key people on the same page so that they can communicate that throughout the organization so that everyone is seeing the same vision. This is particularly critical in a large organization.
Brandon Allens last blog post..
Thanks for the post,,lucy
Thanks for the post,,lucy