Rebranding failures can be costly, turning well-established companies into case studies in what not to do. A poorly executed rebrand can confuse loyal customers, weaken brand recognition, and, in extreme cases, tank sales overnight. Whether it’s Tropicana abandoning its iconic packaging, Gap’s six-day logo disaster, or Twitter/X erasing its own identity, these missteps show that change for the sake of change rarely works.
But why do big brands keep making these mistakes? Is it pressure to stay “modern”? Executive overconfidence? A disconnect from actual customers? Whatever the reason, history proves that rebranding without a clear branding strategy often backfires.
Twitter / X
Elon Musk’s rebrand of Twitter to “X” is the corporate equivalent of setting a historic landmark on fire and replacing it with a neon billboard that just says “cool.” Gone is the iconic blue bird, replaced by a stark, joyless “X” that looks like it belongs on a failed cryptocurrency exchange. Because, naturally, when you own one of the most recognisable brands in the world, the best move is to erase it entirely.
This rebrand is supposedly part of Musk’s grand vision for an “everything app,” though what that actually means remains anyone’s guess. So far, it seems to involve making the platform less usable while hemorrhaging advertisers at record speed. The promise of a futuristic, AI-powered financial hub is all very exciting, but considering Twitter can barely keep basic features running, let’s just say optimism is low.
Of course, Musk’s fans will hail this as genius—because if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that rebranding disasters can always be spun as “disruptive innovation.” But for everyone else, X just feels like Twitter’s awkward, midlife crisis phase. A platform once defined by its cultural relevance now feels more like an expensive vanity project with an identity problem.
Facebook / Meta
Mark Zuckerberg’s rebranding failure of Facebook to Meta is akin to slapping a fresh coat of paint on a crumbling façade and declaring it a new architectural marvel. The name change, ostensibly to reflect a pivot towards the “metaverse,” seems more like an attempt to divert attention from the myriad controversies that have plagued the company.
The public’s reaction has been less than enthusiastic. A survey revealed that 40% of Americans hold an unfavourable view of the new name, with many suspecting it’s a strategic move to distance the company from its tarnished reputation.
Zuckerberg’s personal transformation hasn’t gone unnoticed either. His recent fashion choices, featuring bold statements in Greek and Latin, suggest a self-styled image as a modern-day emperor. While the attire is new, the underlying ambition remains all too familiar.
In essence, Meta’s rebrand appears to be more about optics than substance. It’s a classic case of changing the label on the bottle without altering the contents within.
Jaguar
Jaguar’s controversial rebrand seems like they’ve decided that subtlety and heritage are entirely overrated. Out goes the classic, elegant styling, and in comes a new logo that looks like a tech startup’s fever dream. The brand, once synonymous with understated British luxury, is now positioning itself as an “all-electric avant-garde” entity—because nothing says innovation like completely abandoning your identity.
Then there’s the Type 00 concept, which looks like someone gave an AI vague instructions to “design a car for rich people in 2050.” It’s bold, it’s bright, and it’s as far removed from an E-Type as you can get without adding wings. Naturally, the reception has been mixed, with some praising its daring new direction and others wondering if Jaguar is experiencing an existential crisis. Even their own design team reportedly had doubts—always a promising sign.
Of course, reinvention is necessary, especially in an era where legacy car brands must compete with Tesla fanatics. But Jaguar’s appeal was always its effortless blend of performance and refinement. By chasing a hyper-futuristic aesthetic, they risk becoming just another luxury EV brand—only with a history they’d rather you forget.
Want to know more about brand identity design?
Yves Saint Laurent
Yves Saint Laurent was once the pinnacle of Parisian chic—a brand synonymous with effortless sophistication and rebellious elegance. Then came the rebrand, where “Yves” was unceremoniously dropped, and the label morphed into Saint Laurent Paris, because apparently, nothing screams modernity like making a luxury brand sound like a budget airline.
This shift was part of Hedi Slimane’s grand vision, which mostly involved erasing history in favour of his rock-and-roll aesthetic. Out went the refined glamour, in came impossibly thin silhouettes, leather jackets, and the general vibe of a moody indie band’s wardrobe. To be fair, it worked—sales soared, and suddenly, YSL wasn’t just for the couture crowd but for every fashion-forward 20-something with a penchant for black.
Fast-forward to today, and the brand seems stuck in an identity crisis. While its minimalist aesthetic still sells, much of the magic that made YSL iconic feels like an afterthought. The days of Le Smoking and bold, artistic innovation have been traded for safe, Instagram-friendly luxury. It’s still expensive, still exclusive, but Saint Laurent without the Yves will always feel like a brand that left part of its soul on the cutting room floor.
Weight Watchers
Weight Watchers—sorry, WW, because apparently, vowels were weighing the brand down—was once the go-to for structured, sensible weight loss. Then came the rebrand, ditching the full name in favour of a sleek, wellness-focused image that nobody really asked for. Because nothing says “healthy living” like sounding vaguely like a wrestling federation.
The pivot was meant to move away from strict dieting and embrace “wellness,” but let’s be honest—WW is still very much about counting points and shedding pounds. The shift mostly confused long-time members, who weren’t sure if they were supposed to be tracking their food or meditating their way to a lower BMI. The attempt to modernise also included an ill-fated venture into the Ozempic-fuelled weight loss trend, which felt slightly at odds with the whole “holistic health” branding.
While WW remains a powerhouse in the industry, the rebrand feels like a midlife crisis disguised as corporate strategy. The original Weight Watchers name had trust, legacy, and clarity—three things the new version lacks. In the end, whether you call it Weight Watchers or WW, the brand is still selling the same thing: a structured way to eat less. Just with fewer vowels.
Burberry
Burberry has spent the past two decades trapped in a never-ending identity crisis, desperately trying to balance its heritage with modern relevance. Once synonymous with British luxury, the brand took a nosedive in the early 2000s when its iconic check pattern became the uniform of football hooligans and knockoff market stalls. Nothing screams exclusivity quite like being plastered on a £10 fake handbag next to a pile of counterfeit DVDs.
After an impressive turnaround under Christopher Bailey, Burberry became the darling of digital innovation and high fashion—only to pivot yet again when Riccardo Tisci took over, replacing timeless trench coats with streetwear-inspired logo prints and a forgettable sans-serif rebrand. The message was clear: Burberry wanted to be cool, which is, of course, the least cool thing a brand can openly admit.
Now, with Daniel Lee at the helm, Burberry has backtracked yet again—bringing back its classic serif logo and leaning hard into “heritage” like the last decade never happened. The constant reinvention feels less like strategy and more like a designer throwing darts at a mood board. If Burberry can finally pick a lane and stay in it, it might just reclaim its status as a true British icon rather than a brand suffering from an expensive identity crisis.
Gap
Gap was once the uniform of effortless American cool—clean, classic, and just preppy enough to make you look like you had your life together. Then came the slow, painful decline, where it somehow managed to lose both its identity and its relevance. Today, Gap exists in a strange limbo: too bland for fashion-forward shoppers, too inconsistent for loyal customers, and too reliant on 40% off sales to be taken seriously.
The brand’s biggest attempt at reinvention—the infamous 2010 logo rebrand—was such a disaster that it was scrapped in six days, setting a world record for corporate backpedaling. More recently, collaborations with Yeezy and retro-nostalgia campaigns have tried to inject life back into the brand, but they mostly highlight the real problem: nobody actually knows what Gap is supposed to be anymore.
Once a staple of every suburban mall, Gap now feels like a store you walk past on the way to somewhere more interesting. The basics are still there—jeans, hoodies, T-shirts—but in a world dominated by fast fashion and luxury streetwear, “good enough” just isn’t good enough. Unless Gap figures out how to be more than a discount bin for old navy blue sweaters, its best days will remain in the ’90s. It will be remembered as having one of the most short-lived rebranding failures of all time.
Tropicana
Tropicana pulled off one of the most baffling rebrand failures in history when it decided that its iconic orange-with-a-straw packaging was too recognisable. In 2009, the company unveiled a sleek, minimalist redesign that looked less like a beloved juice brand and more like generic supermarket stock. Customers were so confused (and unimpressed) that sales plummeted by $30 million in two months. Tropicana quickly backtracked, proving that sometimes, the best innovation is leaving well enough alone.
Since then, the brand has been coasting on nostalgia, but it still can’t resist the occasional identity crisis. From launching a premium glass-bottle orange juice (because nothing screams “luxury” like citrus) to a baffling 2020 campaign promoting orange juice as a hangover cure, Tropicana seems unsure whether it’s selling breakfast or an alternative to aspirin.
At its core, the brand remains synonymous with mass-market orange juice—reliable but rarely exciting. The juice aisle is now filled with cold-pressed, organic, and “not-from-concentrate” competitors that make Tropicana look increasingly old-school. While it may never fully recover from its branding blunders, at least it learned one thing: never mess with an orange and a straw.
How to Avoid Rebrand Failures...
Rebranding can be a powerful tool—when done right. But as history shows, even the biggest brands can fumble, turning bold reinvention into costly confusion.
Whether it’s a misguided logo design change, an unnecessary name swap, or a desperate attempt to stay “cool,” these mistakes often stem from a disconnect between brand identity and consumer expectations. The lesson? Change should be strategic, not reactionary.
A brand’s strength lies in recognition, trust, and consistency—erase those, and you risk becoming just another cautionary tale in corporate overthinking. The real challenge isn’t just evolving—it’s knowing what not to change.
Know any other rebrand failures that you think are worthy of note? Contact me and I’ll be sure to include them!
