.png)
The Rebranding Trap: Why Companies Keep Making the Same Expensive Mistakes
From Jaguar's controversial makeover to Dell's identity crisis, corporate rebranding disasters follow a depressingly predictable pattern. Why this keeps on happening.
Jeremy Clarkson once said about driving behind a Jaguar XJ that "you never know who drives the Jaguar XJ in front of you, it could be the Prime Minister or Hannibal Lecter." Jaguars were always elegant, oozing Britishness and slightly mysterious. They were never loud, came mostly in muted colors like British Racing Green, and they were tied to the UK like the King's guards or Scottish castles. Yes, in the 90s the ghastly X-type was introduced (it never featured a convertible, luckily so, it prevented drivers of an X-type from experiencing even greater shame) supposedly to lure BMW 3-series customers into buying a Jaguar (newsflash: buyers of a 3-Series will still want to buy a BMW), and in the 2000s the clientele changed a bit, asking for matte-black rims and louder engines. And the otherwise brilliant Ian Callum made the XJ redesign look a bit like a Mazda, at least in the front. But the massive "brand redesign" of Jaguar in late 2024 surprised everybody. Jaguar was woke now. But they might have gotten the woke memo a bit late. Maybe too late.
Because just a few weeks ago the news broke quietly but spoke volumes: Jaguar is reviewing its creative account with Accenture Song after their controversial rebrand sparked massive backlash. The luxury carmaker had traded its iconic "growler" logo for a pseudo-minimalist, Art-Deco-ish 'J', accompanied by abstract visuals and hollow slogans like "Live Vivid" and "Delete Ordinary." The campaign succeeded in generating buzz, just not the kind that sells luxury cars. In April 2025 Jaguar sold 49 cars in Europe. Yes, you read that right. 49 is the number. This suddenly makes Maserati of the 1990s a carmaker for the masses.
The irony runs even deeper when you examine the visual choices. Jaguar's new minimalist logo and the "00" concept cars embrace an Art Deco aesthetic, clean lines, geometric forms, and modernist sophistication. But Art Deco, at its core, celebrates everything the woke movement typically dislikes, or event openly hates: sumptuous materials like Japanese lacquer, precious stones such a marble or emerald, rare leathers, and polished steel or brass. The Le Corbusier sofas and armchairs, the LC1 and LC2, are crafted using a complex tube-bending technique, and Mies van der Rohe’s iconic “Barcelona” chair is infamous for it’s delicate cross-section which holds the whole thing together. It's a design philosophy built on luxury, exclusivity, and high-end craftsmanship. It’s quintessentially capitalistic. So Jaguar managed to adopt a visual language that fundamentally contradicts their stated values, creating a brand identity that satisfies neither heritage enthusiasts nor progressive consumers. It's aesthetic confusion masquerading as strategic vision. So, obviously, consequently, nobody likes the result. What a surprise. They could have run a 200 Euro online survey to reach the same conclusion. Or, were the guys responsible for the actual rebranding in just for the virtue-signaling part? It seems a bit like.
This isn't an isolated incident. From Cracker Barrel's "bland and pitiful" logo redesign (as the co-founder himself called it) to Dell's abandonment of decades-old product names like Latitude and XPS in favor of Apple-esque "Max" and "Pro" terminology, corporate rebranding disasters have become almost routine. If you believe the comments on Reddit many Dell-buyers now ask a LLM “if I want to buy an XPS what Dell model is this now?”. The question isn't whether these failures will happen, but why they keep repeating the same fundamental mistakes. What about a Latte Pro Max? Or an electric Pro Max toothbrush? Especially as the existing Apple branding might come to a timely end in the coming years. Rumor has it that Apple is adopting a Samsung-Edge-style screen next year, and also a foldable phone, stuff which is on sale with Samsung for almost 10 years (edge screen), and the foldable phone from Samsung is now in its 7th generation. Is now Samsung copying Apple or Apple copying Samsung? At least Samsung doesn't also use the wording Pro Max—or was it Max Pro? Having said that, folks who have been in business at the turn of the century (the last one, that is) might remember that everything was called Millennium back then, and we mean literally everything. Computers, bridges, hotels, diapers. Everything.
.png)
The Anatomy of a Rebranding Disaster
The Jaguar case study reveals the classic anatomy of a rebranding failure. A heritage luxury brand, known for powerful, sleek, quintessentially British vehicles, suddenly pivoted to appeal to a "younger, more diverse audience." The result? Alienated existing customers who could actually afford their cars while courting an urban, progressive demographic that would never purchase a Jaguar anyway. Or couldn’t.
The pattern is depressingly familiar: companies abandon what made them valuable in pursuit of what consultants promise will make them relevant.
The Systemic Causes: Why This Keeps Happening
1. The Consultant Echo Chamber
When Accenture Song was tasked with modernizing Jaguar's image, they likely drew from their urban, progressive cultural bubble. High-end consulting firms often mistake their own values for universal market trends. The people designing the rebrand for a 100k or 200k luxury car aren't the people buying them, they're young urbanites who bike to work and view car ownership as environmentally problematic. Flying for a weekend or “workation” to Barcelona is obviously not problematic. But it creates a fundamental disconnect between brand strategy and market reality.
2. The "Territorial Marking" Syndrome
Here's an uncomfortable truth: new CEOs often rebrand for the same reason dogs mark territory. They need visible proof of their impact, something they can point to and say "I did this." Rebranding provides immediate, tangible evidence of leadership and strategic thinking to boards and shareholders.
Consider the Cracker Barrel example, where a new CEO hired in 2023 drove a rebranding that an investor warned four times was "obvious folly." The company eventually reversed course, but not before damaging relationships with loyal customers. The CEO needed to make their mark, and the brand paid the price.
3. The Emperor's New Clothes Effect
Nobody dares challenge the boss's rebranding vision. Internal teams might recognize the danger, but they stay silent due to:
• Career self-preservation instincts
• The assumption that "the CEO must know something I don't"
• Fear of being labeled as "resistant to change"
• New leadership bringing in supporters who owe their positions to backing the vision
This creates an internal environment where dissent is discouraged and groupthink flourishes. If you work for a large corporation and truly think “out of the box” you are most likely going to be sacked.
4. The Consultant Responsibility Shield
Hiring prestigious firms like Accenture Song or McKinsey creates plausible deniability. If the rebrand fails, "even the experts got it wrong." If it succeeds, the CEO takes credit for bold leadership. It's a classic asymmetric bet that feels safer than trusting internal expertise.
The premium prices these firms charge reinforce the perception that their recommendations must be valuable. Boards feel more comfortable approving expensive changes backed by prestigious consultancies than similar recommendations from internal teams.
5. The "Younger Demographic" Phantom
Companies obsess over attracting younger customers while systematically alienating their profitable existing base. Jaguar's heritage resonated with affluent, heritage-conscious drivers like their actual market. But the allure of capturing millennials and Gen Z proved irresistible, even though these demographics weren't realistic customers for luxury vehicles.
This reflects a broader corporate anxiety about aging customer bases, leading to overcorrection in pursuit of relevance. The irony here is that young customers often love brands with authentic history. The Hermès Birkin bag remains one of the most desired items among younger luxury consumers precisely because of its heritage and exclusivity. Supreme collaborates with Louis Vuitton, young sneaker enthusiasts obsess over vintage Jordans, and Gen Z drives the vintage luxury watch market - all because these brands maintained their authenticity rather than chasing trends. Adidas and Puma’s vintage models are the most popular, and if you walk around in a hip quarter of Berlin, Paris, Stockholm or Warsaw, it’s really difficult not to stumble into Mercedes W124, Saab 900 or Lancia Delta Integrale (if you are lucky that is).
6. The Trend-Chasing Trap
Corporate wokeism was THE trend of the late 2010s, and Jaguar—arriving fashionably late to the party, attempted to appease young, "virtuous" consumers. It was essentially an effort to make Greta Thunberg “not hate” Jaguar anymore, despite the fundamental impossibility of making a luxury car brand environmentally acceptable in the eyes of climate activists. Also, it’s kind of painful to envision the bearer of a male dutt piloting a navy-blue over tan XJS down a backstreet in the Cotswolds. The idea just doesn’t sit well.
This reflects a broader corporate FOMO (fear of missing out) on cultural movements. Companies watch other brands receive praise for progressive messaging and want their share of the goodwill, without understanding that the context and timing matter enormously. What worked for Nike with Colin Kaepernick in 2018 doesn't translate to a British luxury car manufacturer in 2024, especially when the cultural pendulum has already begun swinging back.
Additional Psychological Drivers
The Quarterly Earnings Theater
Rebranding generates immediate media coverage and buzz. CEOs can point to "modernization efforts" and "strategic repositioning" in earnings calls while waiting for actual business improvements to materialize. It's change that looks impressive on paper, even when it damages long-term brand equity.
The Startup Envy Complex
Established companies look at nimble startups and assume their "legacy" branding is holding them back. They want to appear as disruptive as their newer competitors, missing that their heritage is actually their competitive advantage. Dell's shift away from established product lines like XPS and Latitude exemplifies this misguided copycat behavior, although in this particular case start-up in question is rather old.
The Metrics Manipulation Problem
Rebranding success gets measured by "brand awareness" and "social media engagement" rather than customer loyalty or sales to existing segments. A controversial rebrand can spike awareness metrics while destroying the relationships that drive revenue, but the awareness numbers look great in PowerPoint presentations. The problem is that this awareness sold 49 cars in Europe in April 2025. And who knows how many of those 49 cars have been bought by stuff members to avoid total humiliation.
The MBA Syndrome
Modern business education emphasizes disruption and transformation over stewardship. Maintaining a successful brand for decades seems boring compared to "reimagining the customer experience" or "disrupting traditional paradigms." Sounds amazing, right? But this creates a generation of executives who view stability as stagnation rather than recognizing it as valuable brand equity.
The Real Cost of Rebranding Disasters
These failures are not just embarrassing, they are also expensive. Beyond the immediate costs of design, implementation, and marketing, companies face:
• Loss of customer loyalty and trust
• Confusion in the marketplace
• Damaged relationships with existing stakeholders
• Opportunity costs of time and resources
• Potential long-term brand equity destruction
Jaguar had a compelling product story to tell with three electric models planned for 2026, but buried it under cultural messaging that alienated their core market. They had substance but chose style. And chose poorly.
The Path Forward: Evolution, Not Revolution
The lesson from these repeated failures is clear: brand evolution should be surgical and well researched, not revolutionary. Successful brands honor what made them valuable while carefully adapting to new realities.
Consider brands that have evolved successfully over decades—companies like Porsche, which has maintained its core identity while expanding into new markets, or Nike, which has stayed relevant across generations without abandoning its fundamental brand promise. Now you can argue that Porsche is not doing overly well now. That’s true, but has not much to do with branding, more with a poorly executed EV-strategy.
The key is understanding that brands are built over decades but can be destroyed in months. They're trust assets, not fashion statements. When companies treat them as the latter, they inevitably learn this distinction the hard way.
The Predictable Pattern
Corporate rebranding disasters follow a predictable pattern because they orignate from predictable human psychology. Executive insecurity, consultant echo chambers, the cowardness of corporate employees, and the allure of quick fixes create perfect storms for brand destruction.
The solution isn't to never evolve, it's to understand the difference between evolution and revolution. Great brands don't reinvent themselves; they reveal new facets of who they've always been. They respect their heritage while staying relevant, honor their customers while attracting new ones, and understand that consistency is a competitive advantage, not a constraint.
Until companies learn this distinction, we'll keep witnessing expensive reminders of what happens when brands forget who they are in pursuit of who they think they should be.
As Jaguar reviews its relationship with Accenture Song and contemplates its next move, one thing is clear: sometimes the best rebranding strategy is knowing when not to rebrand at all. If it ain’t broken don’t fix it.
