Rebranding ... a word with a resonance (much too) pleasant to the ears of many "specialists" in branding. Some time ago I saw on the media on an important TV channel, a contest for the designation of the most promising Romanian brand, whose prize was: A "complete" rebranding program. It was very difficult for me to understand how you can reward the most promising Romanian brand with a rebranding program. Either it is the least promising Romanian brand and then rebranding makes (some) sense, or if it is the most promising Romanian brand what needs rebranding. Somewhere there is a mistake. Something is rotten. Serious not only by the nature of the dysfunction but as much by the misunderstanding of an extremely important phenomenon in business, the brand, but also by an uninspired approach to some terms and concepts. Rebranding I have to say from the beginning is an extreme solution. Fire escape. When something else doesn't work and everything collapses into anonymity, when communication between the brand and consumers has disappeared, we can consider the rebranding process. This process means a redefinition of the whole concept that was the basis of brand construction. It may involve changing the name, slogan, logo, entire visual and / or verbal identity. Once the rebranding process has started, all the values that characterized the brand will acquire new valences, other than the previous ones, will be practically redefined. The whole concept of brand culture undergoes significant changes in the structure of communication and identity. Side effects, costs, direct results can never be anticipated. It can be a process of revitalizing a brand, but it can also be an unwanted process of going down in history in the "not so" chapter. A rebranding process means first of all a very accurate analysis of the factors that determined the "fall of the brand". That is why the decision to start a rebranding process is an extremely important one, being able to be taken only in the conditions of the existence of accurate and well-documented information. There are countless examples of incorrectly applied rebranding at the most inopportune times. I will mention here only one of the most famous: NewCoke. It took 3 months for the decision to return to the old brand to be made, but the effects were seen for several years after. In this sense, I will only tell you this. If someone offers to rebrand for your brand, the first thing you need to determine is who has to gain, you or him? I have been a spectator, on the Mioritic lands, in recent years at countless rebranding processes. Some started less than three months after the launch of the brand. It would be ridiculous if he didn't cry for the money he spent so hilariously. Now, the good news is that in other sunnier lands, just as serious mistakes are being made. The well-known GAP brand tried in an exaggeratedly discreet way to change the logo, so well known, with a new one, which those from New York Fashion magazine called an artistic banality. Of course, there are times when business development involves a new brand strategy and a new brand image closely related to the old brand image. We are talking then about a natural evolution of the brand and not how it is erroneously defined as rebranding. Rebranding for this reason should be considered as the last resort. It can be a success or vice versa. The simple change of the logo, the name, the slogan will only bring damage. Change must occur at the level of consumer perception, so that brand values gain consistency and credibility. A new logo, a "fresh" slogan, a beautiful name, will never cause a brand to be resurrected in agony. It's like trying to heat a lighter bucket. There are many cases of rebranding that have failed miserably - GAP, New Coke, Tropicana, AOL, etc. Each time the main reason for the failure was the lack of communication between the brand and consumers. This communication deficit was reflected in the choice of an inappropriate time to start the rebranding process, the lack of information about consumers' wishes and implicitly the choice of inappropriate solutions. In most cases, returning to the original form was the best solution, proving that starting the rebranding process was totally uninspired and far from the wishes and expectations of consumers. Observation. It is very rare for a charismatic brand to end up rebranding. It would be a contradiction in terms. I personally do not know of such cases.