Brand teams are quick to rebrand when they hit a rough patch. But they sometimes forget that a brand is more than a company name, logo, tagline, or ad creative. And that a shiny new brand identity won’t automatically solve all of the problems of the business.
The marketing world is littered with failed rebranding initiatives (from the Gap to Tropicana) that illustrate one simple truth about branding. A company doesn’t own a brand. It’s consumers do. Giving a brand a new coat of paint (or dressing it in sheep’s clothing) won’t change consumers feelings and expectations of a brand.
The RadioShack brand has been fascinating to watch over the last five years. If ever a brand needed a rebrand, it’s RadioShack. The Onion wrote a funny piece a few years ago titled, “Even CEO Can’t Figure Out How RadioShack Still In Business”, which included these funny, but telling, quotes:
“Even the name ‘RadioShack’—can you imagine two less appealing words placed next to one another? What is that, some kind of World War II terminology? Are ham radio operators still around, even? Aren’t we in the digital age?
“Every location is full of bizarre adapters, random chargers, and old boom boxes, and some sales guy is constantly hovering over you. It’s like walking into your grandpa’s basement. You always expect to see something cool, but it never delivers”
RadioShack is a tale of two rebranding initiatives. In 2009, they tried to force a new colloquial nickname, “The Shack” on the same tired old store. They put much of their $200mm ad budget that year into TV and digital ads to introduce The Shack. It wasn’t based on any consumer insight. No consumers called RadioShack “The Shack”. And they didn’t change their inventory or the stores themselves. It was a huge flop and the stock has lost 95% of its value in the past 7 years.
This year, they’re trying something new, rebranding while staying true to its roots. Their CMO Jennifer Warren shared a little detail in a recent FastCompany article called “How RadioShack Got Its Groove Back”:
“When we started talking to customers to see how to remake RadioShack, what we discovered was whether they loved us or hated us, they still had a lot of passion for the brand. For the people who hated it when RadioShack started focusing on smartphones, they still had positive memories of RadioShack from the ’80s as this place where inventors and makers got their start.”
RadioShack is taking advantage of the maker movement to re-concept stores around their maker heritage — with 3-D printers, robot sets, and meeting space for DIY types. So far, this is primarily revealed in a few concept stores (and last year’s Superbowl ad, “The 80s Called; They Want Their Store Back”), but it will be interesting to see how the rebrand continues to unfold over the next year. This time, they’re not trying to be something they’re not.
“Historically, RadioShack has been the MacGyver for MacGyvers, the place where makers who know how to do 80 percent of what they want to accomplish go to get the next 20 percent. So that’s what we’re trying to get back to. The only difference is that everyone is a MacGyver now, which means we’ve got to step up our game.”
I’d love to hear your thoughts on RadioShack and rebranding in general.
(Marketoonist Monday: I’m giving away a signed cartoon print. Just share an insightful comment to this week’s post by 5:00 PST on Monday. Thanks!)
Hugh Griffiths says
Inauthentic branding has never really worked, but with the digital platforms now available to consumers any company that tries it will be called out more loudly and more publicly that ever before. For a company to be held to account in this way is both right and good.
However, I am also concerned that skilled, well-intentioned and strategic choices to rebrand are often under more fire than they deserve from an army of critical public and professional observers. A great example was the change of narrative around the new Airbnb logo – originally hailed as positive, opinion soon changed as the mind of one observer sees ‘ladyparts’ in the image.
Inauthentic branding of wolves as sheep is never acceptable, but equally think about how many wolves circle around major rebrands – justified critique or perhaps just looking for a quick meal in the arena of public opinion.
April says
Re-branding is a very tough thing to achieve- I think Domino’s did it well a few years ago by acknowledging in their advertising that people didn’t like their pizza and that they are changing that.
Understanding how consumers view your brand currently I think is key to relaunching successfully, as is putting a hefty amount of media weight behind the advertising- in the past with some clients I work on they want to re-brand themselves or launch a new product but only spend 30 TRP’s a week to air the ad. It won’t do you any good if you don’t shout it out!
DMCD says
Here’s what jumps out at me:
“RadioShack is a tale of two rebranding initiatives. In 2009, they tried to force a new colloquial nickname, “The Shack” on the same tired old store. They put much of their $200mm ad budget that year into TV and digital ads to introduce The Shack. It wasn’t based on any consumer insight. No consumers called RadioShack “The Shack”. And they didn’t change their inventory or the stores themselves. It was a huge flop and the stock has lost 95% of its value in the past 7 years.”
Did RadioShack do this? Or did a consultant marketing agency do this?
When we see failures like this, it’s usually casually blamed on the company (“RadioShack tried…”) for their poor foresight or bad ideas, but I wouldn’t imagine at companies of this size that these kinds of things are conceived and executed internally. This approach was presumably recommended by paid industry experts. Here’s an interesting question for you, Tom: where does blame fairly reside when marketing goes wrong?
Tom says
Let’s face it, no matter what they call themselves, the traditional Radio Shack business model is doomed. I think this is a clever attempt to become relevant again by providing value that you can’t get from electronic stores on the internet, or even hobbyist discussion boards, and to introduce a sense of wonder that might make it a place where parents love to bring their young kids.
Meshack says
“A company doesn’t own a brand. It’s consumers do.”
This is brilliantly put! I keep my eye on how much effort television properties are putting into branding these days… but at a certain point they lose control of the brand story and the fans (customers) take control. Technology has given them the voice to do so, from hashtag conversations on Twitter to fan videos and parodies on YouTube.
It’s quite amazing, but must be maddening for brand managers trying to keep old-school control of their message.
Claudia says
“A company doesn’t own a brand. It’s consumers” = Brilliant!
It reminded me of an article I read recently that said: “a brand is the one sentence people say about you behind your back”
J D Singh says
Well said ” A company doesn’t own a brand it’s consumers do”. The message: must engage customers in the re-branding exercise. Not only this when re-branding also involves re-positioning what matters more is not what brand name or logo etc is chosen but how customers are kept well engaged in the process of re-branding and how its communications are unfolded. An interesting of this from India is of “Hero Honda” when its Indian management decided to re-brand its bike as “Hero” and even strengthened further its brand equity.
Melanie Wilhoite says
DCMD, blame lies with the company that made the decision to move forward with a campaign that was clearly ill concenved. That is an example of what can happen when a company drinks its own Kool-Aid, certain that “it knows better.” A good agency can and should bring external perspective that helps executives make thoughtful and informed decisions, helps them get out of their ivory tower and see themselves as the market does. That’s how companies can avoid such missteps.
Tessa Stuart says
Take British Airways “to fly to serve” campaign. We had a late night text from BA saying our flight the next day was cancelled. We called up, annoyed that our vacation plans were disrupted, and the BA guy said: “The flight is actually being run by Titan Airways and they have technical problems.” No apologies for losing us a day of our holiday. British Airways used to be the airline that you were glad to see at the end of a long working day abroad, because you knew the flight would run on time and you would be well looked after.
If there is a big disconnect between the experience of the brand on the ground (literally in this case!) and the advertising promise, all that marketing spend is wasted, no matter what the clever ad agency may tell their client.
Bobby says
Very insightful article. Didn’t know that about The Shack. Thanks! What is with these brands that don’t preform nearly any market research before launching a brand or re-branding? JC Penny seems to be the most epic failure in recent history. Remember their “Fair and Square Pricing” where they rounded off to the dollar instead of .99 cents. They also did away with sales and discounts which is a sure way to move inventory in retail. And what about those cryptic ads starring Ellen DeGeneres? Nothing says new and fresh like having commercials that take place at the O.K. Corral.
Sean says
I caught the press surrounding the “The Shack” initiative; I had no idea they were now aiming for makerspace, and this is despite visiting two of my local outlets with some regularity. I guess this drives home another point: no amount of rebranding is going to help when the product (in this case, the store inventory & atmosphere) itself isn’t evolving to match the brand.
Susan Goewey says
Reminded me of another Wolfe in White Wool — Tom Wolfe branded himself before self-branding was cool
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/05/15/the-genius-of-tom-wolfes-white-suits/?utm_term=.a947d486ee2f