Crisis rebranding: changing the identity after a reputation scandal
When identity change saves and when it finishes the brand
There are operational problems — they can be closed with processes and communication. And there are systemic problems related to values or safety — rebranding does not solve them, it masks them, and the audience feels it faster than the marketer can agree on a new font.
S7 Airlines is a good example of the first case. After several aviation disasters at the beginning of the 2000-s, the company conducted a rebranding while modernizing its fleet and safety procedures, and the name change in 2005 worked: today the old brand has no negative baggage because alongside the renaming, the fleet and safety procedures were also changed. But Xfinity (Comcast) changed its name as early as 2010 for image reasons, but four years later faced a public scandal with a rude support operator — because the name was changed, but the system of training and quality control was not. The problem was not with the brand, but with the processes that the brand did not touch.
Rebranding exacerbates the crisis in three situations:
- the problem is systemic — for example, product quality, safety, ethics — while only the shell changes;
- the audience has a strong emotional attachment to the old name, and its disappearance is perceived as betrayal rather than care;
- The company maintains the same people, the same decision-making processes, but attempts to 'isolate itself from negativity' — this is how 51% of users perceived Facebook's transition to Meta in October 2021 year.
What to change in the identity, and what to leave untouched
The mistake of beginners is to redo everything at once: logo, name, colors, slogan, mission. This erases both the good that was in the brand and creates in the audience the feeling that the company does not acknowledge guilt, but simply runs away.
| Element | Changing during a crisis | Leave unchanged |
|---|---|---|
| Name | If it is legally or reputationally compromised (court, toxic association) | If the problem is with a specific person or episode, and not with the name as such |
| Logo | If it is closely associated with the compromised person or symbol | If investments in recognizability are huge and the symbol itself is neutral |
| Brand face / character | Always, if the character is the source of the scandal | — |
| Color palette | Pointedly, for a visual signal 'we are different' | Fully, if the audience values recognizability and does not associate the color with the problem |
| Product / menu / service | Practically always — this is the most convincing proof of changes | — |
Papa John's in 2018 year did not change its name — it removed founder John Schnatter from all advertising materials and the logo worldwide and registered a new trademark. The problem was personified, so the solution was point-based. McDonald's, on the contrary, did not touch the logo: investments in the letter M are too large to abandon it — instead, the company introduced a menu with salads and dishes up to 400 calories and removed Ronald McDonald from ads. In both cases, the identity changed exactly where the pain was, not everywhere at once.
Immediately after the scandal or after a pause
There is no universal timeframe, but there is logic. If the scandal is one-time and its cause is eliminated (the person is fired, the toxic product is removed), you can announce changes quickly — dragging things out reads as hesitation. If the problem is systemic and requires real time to fix processes, hasty rebranding looks like an attempt to cover one's tracks, and this is felt by the audience almost physically.
A practical benchmark: first, there must be public acknowledgment of the problem and a specific action plan, and visual changes should follow as a visible proof rather than as a replacement for explanation. The 'Yobidobi' network was required to rebrand by court order: the arbitration court of Krasnoyarsk region in April 2023 year demanded a name change, the process concluded in December 2024 year, not spontaneously, and this provided time to prepare the audience for the name change, not to surprise them with it.
Why a logo change without internal changes fails
This is probably the main reason for failed crisis rebrandings. The audience doesn't buy the form — they check the content in the first weeks after the relaunch. If the new logo meets the same toxic call center, the same irresponsibility on site, the scandal returns faster than the old one has time to be forgotten.
The Xfinity case is particularly instructive here: the company learned a lesson in 2014 year, four years after the name change, precisely because the visual rebranding was not accompanied by a rebuild of the support service. The rule is simple: rebranding without changing processes is not a solution to the problem, but its preservation under a new wrapper.
The first 30 days: where the perception of the new brand is formed
The first month after launch is a critical zone. It is during this period that the audience decides whether to trust the new image or consider it cosmetic. Several simple but often ignored rules are at work here.
- Management personally explains why the changes occurred — without this, a press release text is insufficient, the audience needs a person, not a document.
- Mentions are monitored both under the old and the new name — the old name will still surface in search results and conversations for a long time, and it cannot be ignored.
- Specific, verifiable evidence of changes is published — not declarations, but facts: a new menu, a new procedure, new quality control.
- The complete erasure of the past is not forced — an attempt to 'act as if nothing happened' raises more suspicion than honest acknowledgment.
A telling local example is the bank «Tochka», which emerged from the ruins of Bank24. The new colors and minimalist design were not accompanied by an attempt to hide its origins—and it was precisely this honest acknowledgment of its connection to the previous organization that helped to win back some of the old clients, rather than lose them permanently.
Rebranding or a retreat: how to distinguish one from the other
The test question is simple: do the changes explain the reason for the scandal or do they hide it? If after the re-launch the same people continue to work and make the same decisions, while only the visual layer changes — this is a retreat. If the product, staff, responsible persons and processes change, while the visual part simply reflects these changes — this is rebranding, which has a chance to work.
Another indicator is the company's readiness to speak about the past directly, rather than erase it from history. Brands that acknowledge the connection to a compromised past and show specific differences «was — became» gain more trust than those that try to pretend the scandal never happened. The audience forgives mistakes more often than it forgives lies about there being no mistakes.
When identity change saves and when it finishes the brand
There are operational problems — they can be closed with processes and communication. And there are systemic problems related to values or safety — rebranding does not solve them, it masks them, and the audience feels it faster than the marketer can agree on a new font.
S7 Airlines is a good example of the first case. After several aviation disasters at the beginning of the 2000-s, the company conducted a rebranding while modernizing its fleet and safety procedures, and the name change in 2005 worked: today the old brand has no negative baggage because alongside the renaming, the fleet and safety procedures were also changed. But Xfinity (Comcast) changed its name as early as 2010 for image reasons, but four years later faced a public scandal with a rude support operator — because the name was changed, but the system of training and quality control was not. The problem was not with the brand, but with the processes that the brand did not touch.
Rebranding exacerbates the crisis in three situations:
- the problem is systemic — for example, product quality, safety, ethics — while only the shell changes;
- the audience has a strong emotional attachment to the old name, and its disappearance is perceived as betrayal rather than care;
- The company maintains the same people, the same decision-making processes, but attempts to 'isolate itself from negativity' — this is how 51% of users perceived Facebook's transition to Meta in October 2021 year.
What to change in the identity, and what to leave untouched
The mistake of beginners is to redo everything at once: logo, name, colors, slogan, mission. This erases both the good that was in the brand and creates in the audience the feeling that the company does not acknowledge guilt, but simply runs away.
| Element | Changing during a crisis | Leave unchanged |
|---|---|---|
| Name | If it is legally or reputationally compromised (court, toxic association) | If the problem is with a specific person or episode, and not with the name as such |
| Logo | If it is closely associated with the compromised person or symbol | If investments in recognizability are huge and the symbol itself is neutral |
| Brand face / character | Always, if the character is the source of the scandal | — |
| Color palette | Pointedly, for a visual signal 'we are different' | Fully, if the audience values recognizability and does not associate the color with the problem |
| Product / menu / service | Practically always — this is the most convincing proof of changes | — |
Papa John's in 2018 year did not change its name — it removed founder John Schnatter from all advertising materials and the logo worldwide and registered a new trademark. The problem was personified, so the solution was point-based. McDonald's, on the contrary, did not touch the logo: investments in the letter M are too large to abandon it — instead, the company introduced a menu with salads and dishes up to 400 calories and removed Ronald McDonald from ads. In both cases, the identity changed exactly where the pain was, not everywhere at once.
Immediately after the scandal or after a pause
There is no universal timeframe, but there is logic. If the scandal is one-time and its cause is eliminated (the person is fired, the toxic product is removed), you can announce changes quickly — dragging things out reads as hesitation. If the problem is systemic and requires real time to fix processes, hasty rebranding looks like an attempt to cover one's tracks, and this is felt by the audience almost physically.
A practical benchmark: first, there must be public acknowledgment of the problem and a specific action plan, and visual changes should follow as a visible proof rather than as a replacement for explanation. The 'Yobidobi' network was required to rebrand by court order: the arbitration court of Krasnoyarsk region in April 2023 year demanded a name change, the process concluded in December 2024 year, not spontaneously, and this provided time to prepare the audience for the name change, not to surprise them with it.
Why a logo change without internal changes fails
This is probably the main reason for failed crisis rebrandings. The audience doesn't buy the form — they check the content in the first weeks after the relaunch. If the new logo meets the same toxic call center, the same irresponsibility on site, the scandal returns faster than the old one has time to be forgotten.
The Xfinity case is particularly instructive here: the company learned a lesson in 2014 year, four years after the name change, precisely because the visual rebranding was not accompanied by a rebuild of the support service. The rule is simple: rebranding without changing processes is not a solution to the problem, but its preservation under a new wrapper.
The first 30 days: where the perception of the new brand is formed
The first month after launch is a critical zone. It is during this period that the audience decides whether to trust the new image or consider it cosmetic. Several simple but often ignored rules are at work here.
- Management personally explains why the changes occurred — without this, a press release text is insufficient, the audience needs a person, not a document.
- Mentions are monitored both under the old and the new name — the old name will still surface in search results and conversations for a long time, and it cannot be ignored.
- Specific, verifiable evidence of changes is published — not declarations, but facts: a new menu, a new procedure, new quality control.
- The complete erasure of the past is not forced — an attempt to 'act as if nothing happened' raises more suspicion than honest acknowledgment.
A telling local example is the bank «Tochka», which emerged from the ruins of Bank24. The new colors and minimalist design were not accompanied by an attempt to hide its origins—and it was precisely this honest acknowledgment of its connection to the previous organization that helped to win back some of the old clients, rather than lose them permanently.
Rebranding or a retreat: how to distinguish one from the other
The test question is simple: do the changes explain the reason for the scandal or do they hide it? If after the re-launch the same people continue to work and make the same decisions, while only the visual layer changes — this is a retreat. If the product, staff, responsible persons and processes change, while the visual part simply reflects these changes — this is rebranding, which has a chance to work.
Another indicator is the company's readiness to speak about the past directly, rather than erase it from history. Brands that acknowledge the connection to a compromised past and show specific differences «was — became» gain more trust than those that try to pretend the scandal never happened. The audience forgives mistakes more often than it forgives lies about there being no mistakes.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
