Now is not the time to rebrand Australian Rugby
Paul Nelson, founder and MD of BrandMatters
By Paul Nelson, founder and MD of BrandMatters | 6 November 2017 1 Comment
Paul Nelson.
Like any businesses, sporting codes change strategies and change direction. Priorities shift, audiences grow and evolve and in order to remain relevant, no brand can remain the same forever.
But situations where a rebrand takes place, timing is everything and the question we immediately ask in the wake of the ARU rebrand - is now really the right time?
I don’t think so.
A rebrand is not a business fix
Logos, taglines, advertising and other external communications are merely representations of a brand. Love or hate the new Rugby AU logo, that’s really not the point.
A rebrand is used as a signal to the market that a fundamental change has occurred within the business, our issue as brand strategists here is that, whilst the look of the brand may have changed, I see little evidence that anything else inside the business actually has.
When rebranding a business there are three key questions need to be answered if stakeholders, in this case staff, players, media and fans, are going to buy in to the change.
Why has the brand changed? What does the visual identity mean? How does this benefit me?
Let’s look at whether this rebrand has considered any of these points.
Why has the brand changed
As yet, I don’t feel we’ve been given a strong and believable reason for the change. Of course, it could be claimed that the change is occurring in anticipation of the rejuvenation of the sport via the women’s code, and that positive evolution is certainly a strong reason to celebrate with a rebrand.
Unfortunately, with a widely reported dysfunctional board, a controversial move of headquarters and the very public axing of WA’s Western Force that positive message is never going to cut through.
And so the rebrand now looks on the outside to be an expensive red herring, an attempt to distract disgruntled fans from the struggles of the sport – without any plan to actually address it.
What does the visual identity mean?
Whilst the story behind the design work is compelling, in no small part because of the strength of the agency behind it, unfortunately in the context of recent events it doesn’t ring true.
The press release talks about the rebrand as symbolising ‘the uniquely inclusive nature of our sport, which can be played by people of any background’, but I don’t think the rugby fans of WA would agree.
The removal of the Wallaby mark on the logo, but the use of it on the Wallaby jersey goes to a disconnect between the institution and the teams.
The removal of our national emblem within the governing body brand is something that we struggle to see the strategic strength of, especially because it breaks away from the successful precedent of our competitors i.e. the English rose, the NZ fern and so on.
I'm not interested in critiquing design execution, Twitter has more than covered that, because the rationale that’s far more interesting. Unfortunately, the rationale doesn’t cut through with so much negativity surrounding the sport.
How does the brand benefit stakeholders?
Herein lies the biggest challenge with the rebranding at this time, the inability to answer the question around, what’s in it for me?
Any rebrand messaging needs to be reflected in a way that resonates with your audience. In light of the negativity outlined earlier, answering this question at this time just got a whole lot harder.
And what of the brand’s own people? Not just the head office teams, but the armies of coaches, volunteers, referees and officials who give up their own time on weekends and evenings.
As all marketing and brand practitioners understand great brands are built from the inside out, so the question must be asked, what are Rugby Australia’s own people saying?
Does this exercise now fill them with confidence and pride? I suspect not.
Now really was not the time
No rebranding decision or process can occur without risk. There is a certain comfort that is often associated with an existing brand, especially among internal stakeholders and older participants and customers of the brand.
A rebrand challenges the status quo and pushes people out of their comfort zones.
So is all the significant criticism justified? This rebrand isn’t about the logo, it doesn’t matter if it looks like ‘two socks hanging on a line’ (according to a comment in social media) or not.
The work seems to be done with careful thought and intelligence by the rebranding agency. My problem is not with the quality of the work, it’s that now really was not the time.
Paul Nelson is founder and managing director of brand strategy consultant BrandMatters.
Read more at http://www.adnews.com.au/opinion/now...OFM2Twcbp2S.99
