To Rebrand or Not to Rebrand?

In 2018, Burberry replaced its Equestrian Knight and its century-old serif wordmark with a plain sans-serif logotype, designed by Peter Saville under then-chief creative officer Riccardo Tisci. It was part of a broader moment in luxury — Saint Laurent, Balmain and others made similar moves around the same time, trading distinctive marks for a shared, minimal look.^[1]

Five years later, under new chief creative officer Daniel Lee, Burberry reversed course. The 2023 identity was described by the brand as "archive-inspired" — the Equestrian Knight and a serif wordmark referencing the pre-2018 branding, both restored.^[2]

The twist worth knowing: Saville himself did not object to going back. What he called "totally and utterly irresponsible" was the execution — the 2023 identity rolled out before his 2018 design had even finished reaching every store, meaning three different versions of Burberry were circulating in the market at once.^[3] The lesson isn't "the sans-serif logo failed." It's that changing an identity carries real operational cost even when the creative direction is sound — and that cost lands on the business, not the mood board.

This vanity trap is not exclusive to global fashion houses. Picture a 25-year-old company whose founder grew bored of the existing look. He pushed for glossy new campaigns while resisting customer-backed insight, and when sales lagged, he changed the business name entirely — without fixing the fractured backend systems or inconsistent messaging underneath it. The rebrand didn't fail visually. It failed because it was asked to cover up operational flaws it was never designed to fix.

The role of brand management

Brand management is the discipline of aligning an organisation's commercial strategy with market perception. Rather than treating identity as a static visual asset, it hangs on positioning as the primary differentiator — ensuring every customer touchpoint reflects a distinct, defensible space in the market.

To convert that into daily operational decisions, brand management typically works across five dimensions:

• Positioning. The strategic territory and distinct value proposition the brand occupies relative to competitors.
• Promise. The explicit commitment made to customers on performance, quality and experience.
• Personality. The tonal, verbal and behavioural traits that define how the brand communicates.
• Presentation. The visual and sensory identity assets across digital, physical and environmental formats.
• Performance. Customer experience, operational delivery and service recovery, measured against what was promised.

A rebrand is a business intervention, not a change of vibe

Rebranding alters the entire system through which people identify, understand and experience an organisation. It touches positioning, name, architecture, propositions and visual identity together. That scope creates real opportunity — but also real cost, operational disruption and memory risk.

The first choice is not which colour palette, logo or agency to pick. It is what becomes easier for customers and for the business after the change. Changing a name or logo without aligning the systems underneath it only fractures the trust already built.

What is actually failing?

Rebrand, reposition, refresh or repair?

Protect what buyers already know

A familiar colour, shape, symbol or name might feel tired inside an organisation, but it often serves as a beacon for buyers. Internal boredom is never evidence of market fatigue. Before replacing an existing brand asset, audit what it actively contributes to recognition, recall and equity — and be honest about what it would cost to rebuild that from zero.

Burberry's own round trip is the clearest illustration available: even with a global design team, a five-year runway and a genuinely well-regarded new identity, the reversal still produced three overlapping versions of the brand circulating at once — the exact confusion a rebrand is meant to resolve, not create. A strategy does not reward founder preference by spending down customer memory. It identifies what to preserve, what is actually holding back relevance, and what the business can consistently execute over time.

The leadership decision checklist

1. Is it a strategy problem or an operational problem? Establish whether the current brand misrepresents the offering, or whether weak backend processes, delivery issues and poor service execution are breaking the customer promise instead.
2. Are you building or breaking memory structures? Identify which existing assets — names, symbols, visual cues — carry valuable recognition with buyers, before discarding them in pursuit of a modern look.
3. Who is this for? Make sure customer-backed evidence is driving the decision, not internal aesthetic boredom, vanity, or an executive's wish to leave a mark.

When XL recommends against a rebrand

If the core identity remains recognisable and credible, the right recommendation is usually to clarify the proposition, strengthen the distinctive assets, standardise the messaging, or repair the service experience — not commission a new one. XL does not manufacture rebrand projects. The job is to identify the smallest sufficient change needed to unlock genuine commercial growth.

The XL perspective

Decision-Led Growth starts with the business condition, not the deliverable. It examines where buyer needs, commercial ambition and distinctive brand assets intersect to create value. A rebrand is justified only when it makes that intersection clearer, more recognisable and easier to choose.

The design-thinking discipline many teams already use maps cleanly onto that same cycle: