Understanding The Principles Of Rebranding In The Fashion Industry

Reasons for Rebranding in the Fashion Industry

Rebranding is an activity in marketing where the organization seeks to develop a new perception which is representative of the position of the brand in the minds of its consumers. Companies rebrand for a variety of reasons; the principal motivation is always to increase the profit margin. Other reasons for rebranding are occasioned by ownership changes such as mergers, demergers, and acquisitions and change of leadership such as entry of a new CEO or managing director. Rebranding may also be driven by the need for better product differentiation, the need to adjust to new market changes or internationalization requirements or just the need to develop and improve on the brand identity over time. The fashion industry is one of the sectors that must be dynamic and fast evolving given the fast pace of emerging trends and changes in consumer tastes and preferences. Rebranding activities result in certain effects in the consumer (rebranding is by design meant to improve consumer perception like it did for Tommy Hilfiger in November 2017). Sometimes though, rebranding results in a negative perception like it was in the case of GAP Inc. in its rebranding attempt in 2010. The objective sought by the essay is to understand the circumstances surrounding the two rebranding actions by GAP Inc. and Tommy Hilfiger and explain how they were conducted and present its findings on how and why they failed/succeeded. This essay will also present a multiplicity of theories/ principles of rebranding in the fashion industry.

According to Bolhuis, De Jong, & Van den Bosch (2018), rebranding is an undertaking that involves the change of image of a corporate entity or business organization with regard to one or all of its products or services by way of a name change or a different advertising strategy. Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which the organization or business seeks to change the perception of the organization in the mind of its target consumers. Rebranding, also called brand rejuvenation is an exercise where the corporate entity seeks to invent a new and differentiated identity of its products or services with the intention of altering the perception of consumers, investors, competitors and other stakeholders in the industry (Stuart 2018, p. 97). Brand rejuvenation is a proceeding involving the change of the corporate image and is conducted in a variety of ways but commonly happens by way of changing the name of the organization. More often than not, corporates rebrand by changing the company symbol commonly referred to as company logo. In other instances, rebranding happens by way of a company changing the design of a brand that is already in existence (Miller, Merrilees & Yakimova 2014, p. 271). Such rejuvenation of the brand normally targets to reposition the organization in the market, move away from negative connotations or to edge closer to the brand upmarket.

Theories of Rebranding in the Fashion Industry

Change of ownership occasioned by mergers, demergers and acquisitions is often one of the key reasons why corporates rebrand. Like in many other sectors, a brand in the fashion industry may seek to identify with the change of ownership of the organization as and when it happens Bolhuis, De Jong, & Van den Bosch (2018, p. 8). The objective in these cases is certainly not only to be in tandem with the change in ownership but also to meet the legal requirements. A merger or an acquisition for instance brings new owners to the company; such changes should be reflected in the brand image. Likewise in the event of a demerger, the company needs to make it clear that certain entities are no longer part of the organization.

In other instances a company needs to change the branding of its product or service so that it can be sold and used in international markets. This may be because the current image, branding or perception of the product limits it to the domestics market.  As posited by Lee (2013), it is possible that using a certain brand name in a new international market may stir up wrong connotations. In such instances it is prudent for the organization to rebrand.

For many organizations, changes in the market dynamics force them to rebrand their products and services. According to Chad (2016), the recent surge in the use of internet technology and information technology in general has for instance put several businesses under threat pushing them to reinvent. They have had to reinvent themselves in order to stay relevant in a fast changing market space.

Sometimes the brand is experiences a bad publicity due to a bad reputation associated with its brand. Negative brand image can result in negative perception among consumers and in turn result in a decrease in the volume of sales and profits (Lee 2013, p. 1129). It becomes necessary that the brand is rejuvenated so that it moves away from the symbol, name or image that is associated with a bad reputation.

Every business faces competition, as such, the decisions of a rival company may have a direct impact on the branding of another organization. In a competitive business environment a business needs to effectively distinguish its brand from those of the competitors (Shetty 2011, p. 56). Sometimes, the brand image of competing companies may seem very similar. This is time for the brand to differentiate itself and avoid creating confusion among consumers.

Impact of Rebranding on Customers

A change of leadership may result in a brand change; in any case most leadership changes in companies are made in order to help the company move in a different, better direction. According to Phang Ing (2012), a new CEO or managing director may come in with a raft of organizational changes in pursuit of the new course for the company and he/she may want to communicate that change through rebranding.

In the last decade, corporate identities for several companies was very simple; just a logo, a palette of basic color and typography. At the time elements such as photography, visual language and the use of secondary colors had not been invented. The development of the latter tools has given corporates a new opportunity to improve their brand images by incorporating all the new elements.

This essay takes a looks at 3 theoretical approaches that will help marketing teams to successfully execute their rebranding exercises:

Theory 1; Ensure a balance between the main ideology of the brand while keeping the brand in tandem with contemporary times.

The import of this theory is that the company should use a blend of stronger brand and innovation. Strong brand is achieved as a product of the core values of the company while innovation, through investment and change. Juntunen (2014) submits that strong brands that do very well over time tend to disregard innovation and unintentionally in the course of time, they give way to competing brands to begin to beat them in the market. Brand leaders ought to reinvent the brand from time to time to make sure that there is corporate sustainability.

Theory 2: Some of the core or peripheral elements of the brand should be maintained in order to serve as an overpass between the previous brand and the current brand.

Rebranding ought not to totally erase all the elements of the current brand. At all times it is necessary to keep a bridge between the brand image that is sought after and the existing one. The vestiges of the former brand image serve to give the product legitimacy in the eyes of the loyal customers and make it easier for them not to protest the reinvented brand (Luck 2012, p. 52). Consequently, the rebranding exercise is better if it comes as an incremental change rather than a radical one.

Theory 3: Good rebranding occasions the need for a brand to satisfy the needs of new market segments other than the one that is patronizing the brand.

The emergence of new markets formerly untapped by the firm occasionally occurs as a consequence of the rebranding exercise and is indicative of the dynamism exhibited by the market. As pointed out by Rebholz (2018), during the process of reinventing the brand, it may be prudent to penetrate into a new segment of the market whose tastes and preferences may be different from the original brand or enter a new market altogether.   

Rebranding always has an effect on the customers; as a matter of fact, it is targeted at altering the customers’ perception of the brand. However, it is the effect of brand rejuvenation activities on the loyal customer that is of concern; loyal customers tend to be the most responsive to brand changes (Haque 2016, p. 2). One significant impact on the loyal customers is associated with the risk of losing the brand’s appeal to them. Rebranding involves a change in the well-known name, symbol or logo of the company, which more often than not enjoys a certain relational or rational value attached to it. For this reason, the loyal customers might reject the change of name, symbol or logo as happened with GAP in 2010. Brand changes can cause the loyal customers to lose trust in the brand. According to Chad (2016) customers develop trust in specific brands thanks to the values and meaning that they attach to certain visual images of the products, or a particular product message. In the event of a rebranding, these information is altered and sometimes the customer is left confused. They may choose to abandon the brand if they feel that it no longer represents what the former brand stood for. According to Shetty (2011) the risk of losing the core is the reason why a rebranding activity should be an incremental process that gives the customers time to adjust and accept gradual changes to the brand rather, than a radical and sudden change. In other instances though, brand rejuvenation or rebranding may have a different effect on a subclass of loyal customers called the committed customers.  Committed customers are those that continue purchasing the brand regardless of the changes. Committed customers are generally unresponsive to changes in the brand name, symbol or logo.  

This section will cover different aspects of business branding. It will focus on the the brands, corporate branding, rebranding processes. It will also highlight different case study companies that practice rebranding.

Brands

Brands in fashion are core components of the fashion market today. In the wake of changes that are taking place with regard to consumer tastes, brands are left with no option but to shape up to the consumers’ needs in order to survive. Any brand is made of a mix of different elements (Phang Ing 2012, p. 262). From time to time one or all of these elements require to be adjusted in order to create a new image in the minds of consumers, investors, stakeholders and competitors. This is what rebranding is about. Brands, unlike products which are processed in manufacturing plants, are created in the minds of people (Miller, Merrilees & Yakimova 2014, p. 272). As such a brand is supposed to narrate the story behind the product or service. The elements of the brand should exhibit cohesion cutting across all platforms. This is the only way that the brand can avoid creating confusion among its consumers. As the tastes and preferences of the current generation changes, aging brands must adjust, which brings us to rebranding.

Corporate rebranding can be classified into one of the two broad categories; the first is called visual identity change. As posited by (Badia & Medina 2016, p. 4). In this mode of rebranding, elements such as the company logo, symbol or name change may be undertaken.  The second type of corporate rebranding involves a change in the internal processes such as change in values of the organization which is carried out simultaneously with employee participation and internal marketing. The two processes set the pace for the initiation of planning, leading to the creation of a new and preferable image for the brand.  

The corporate rebranding process is elaborate and entails three major stages. The first stage is analysis, in which the company takes on a rebranding strategy after the completion of a situational analysis. The second stage is planning, where the organization already has in place a rebranding strategy to be used in future-usually in anticipation of future changes. The last stage is evaluation where the company assesses all rebranding campaigns with a view to making improvements over time. According to Bisio (2017) during the situational analysis stage, a fashion company conducts a thorough study of the market to establish aspects such as emerging trends and patterns within the market, the size of the market as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their competitors. In the course of the situational analysis, the company must unpick the elements of the brand that shall be retained for a specified period as well as those that will be discarded.

In the subsequent stage (planning stage) the company makes as decision as to which market segment is going to be its target market for the product after it gets its new image (Dubey 2014, p. 47). This is the stage at which the marketing department arrives at the strategy to be used in the rebranding and the personnel to be engaged in the rebranding process. Evaluation, the third and last stage of the process is carried out throughout the entirety of the rebranding. The import of this is that every activity of the rebranding process has to be assessed with a view to detecting any shortcomings and opportunities for improvement in the future.

Rebranding is usually achieved by making changes to certain elements of the brand such as the name, the symbol, logo, themes colors or anything else that may let the customers know what the brand stands for. Rebranding is increasingly taking on an upwards trend in the corporate world especially among fashion companies (Lee 2013, p. 1129). It is a marketing strategy being employed by businesses in the development and maintenance of their brand equity. Most organizations today carry out brand rejuvenation in an attempt to reestablish their organizational identity; visual identity and corporate identity. A classic example of a company that rebranded is Apple in the late 90s. According to Juntunen (2014) when Steve Jobbs came back to Apple, its performance was weak. He realized that in order to move the company in a different direction, they needed to shift the focus of the advertising to ideas and experience rather than just the product itself.

This section of the paper takes a look at GAP Inc as one of the compnies that has understaken a major rebranding exercise in the recent past. GAP Inc. (an omni channel retailer that deals in apparels, accessories and personal products for men, women and children) has a wide product portfolio which enables the company to reach a broader clientele base because they have a variety that addreesses the needs of customers with varied tastes and porefences. According to ‘The Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis’ (2018), GAP Inc earned 45.7% of its revenue from the Old Navy Global, the second highest income earner was Gap Global at 33.5%, followed by Banana Republic at 15% and lastly all others combined raised revenue amounting to 5%. One of the shortcomings of the GAP Inc is the fact that it is heavily dependent on the efforts of its appointed vendors and retailers that operate outside the United States of America. The disadvantage that comes about with this is that it makes it difficult for GAP to respond to any urgent needs. The company depends on more than 800 vendors who operate in over 40 counrtires. Each vendor is faced with the challenge of complying with different standards with regards to environmental, health, safety and labor requirements. As Stuart (2018) posits, businesses today are expanding thanks to acquisuitions, mergers and subsidiaries.

The challenge that GAP faces and which becomes a weaknesss for the business is the fact that in instances where the vendors are not able to comply with the standards as set out in the countries where they operate, a delay in the delivery of GAP’s products is likely to result. Even worse is the potential damage to reputation that the company risks in the event that it loses a vendor over noncompliance isses.  With regards to opportunities, it is noteworthy that the largest market for GAP’s products is in North America. Owing to the fact that the economy of North America is projected to grow with corresponding surges in employment in 2018, retail spending power of GAP’s cutomers is likely to be boosted (Stuart 2018, p. 98). GAP is likely to see more sales in North America. 

GAP Inc. sought to conduct a rebranding in 2010. As is the practice with most organizations, GAP Inc. underwent a change of logo in its rebranding in October 2010. The high fashion retailer had been using the same logo for over two decades. On the 6^th October 2010, the company through its website changed the company logo from the well-known symbol which was the word GAP written in uppercase and enclosed in a dark blue square to the same word written as Gap in an encasing of a white square (Fox 2015, p. 63). The blue square was changed to a small blue one that sat above the letter “p” in the word Gap and the dark blue square was done away with. The rebranding strategy was not received well by the company’s loyal customers. The deduction made from this is that any company seeking to rebrand should engage its loyal customers in order to find out what they feel about the intended brand changes.  

Another rebranding story which is notable in the fashion industry is that of the men’s fashion merchandiser Dior Homme done by Hedi Slimane in 2000. When he became creative director of the company he moved the image of the brand from American fit and made it about a slim fit design that featured jackets and pants which are figure hugging (Haque 2016, p. 3). The changes that were introduced by Hedi Slimane transformed Dior Homme into one of the most sought after top of the range luxury brands. Actually Dior was no longer viewed as Dior Monsieur anymore, rather it was perceived as Dior Homme. The alterations in design that were undertaken by Hedi made significant contributions to the universe of men’s fashion and trends.

The term brand personality is used in reference to persons that can have an association with the brand. In the fashion industry, branding and rebranding usually involves the decision to choosing a strong brand personality. As presented by Ivens & Valta (2012) a strong brand personality also called a brand ambassador helps the fashion brand to distinguish itself from competing brands. Rebranding in fashion frequently involves changing of brand personalities. The most sought after persons for the position of brand personality are usually celebrities, such as pop singers, movie stars, athletes and other sports personalities. The rationale behind the use of popular persons is simple; personalities of their standing inspire and influence millions of people to dress and accessorise the way they do (Mabkhot, Shaari & Salleh, SM 2017, p. 8). In May 2018 this year for example, Tommy Hilfiger named models Hailey Baldwin and Winnie Harlow as brand personalities for Tommy Hilfiger’s women products.

While the decision to rebrand is normally a strategy of the finance department, it is carried out as a marketing function. As is the case with many other strategic decisions, rebranding is a way that the organization maximizes the perceived fit between itself and the organization’s environment (Dubey 2014, p. 46). Corporate rebranding is a time consuming affair and often demands a lot of resources.

Despite the fact that most corporate entities see rebranding as a window of remedying many challenges facing the organization, there are several risks associated with the rebranding process. Four major risks are identified in this essay. They will be referred to as the pitfalls of the rebranding process. According to Luck (2012) there seems to be a trend where most rebranding strategies have ended up in more failures than successes. When one takes a holistic look at the organization, it emerges that a communication change alone is not enough strategy.

Firstly, in rebranding, the company runs the risk of getting out of touch with the core. The core of the brand is the central brand message and the story behind the brand which many of its loyal customers identify with and associate it with (Hughes, A 2018, p. 24).  If this is lost, the threat of losing some customers is real. Given that human beings are habitual beings they may not get the same appeal from the reinvented brand and may switch brands altogether. Stakeholder myopia is the second pitfall in rebranding. Stakeholders such as the shareholders and board members may not support the rebranding expedition, posing challenges to the implementation process. Another factor that organizations must watch out against is the tendency of giving attention to labels at the expense of meanings. Brands are not just labels; they tell the story behind the product and give a compelling message about the brand (Miller, Merrilees & Yakimova 2014, p. 270. In rebranding, the centrality of the product message and the story behind the brand must never be lost. Finally another pitfall that stands in the way of many corporate entities in the rebranding process is the theory called ‘one company one voice’. It is also known as the limitation of multiple identities. Proponents of this theory opine that a corporate entity should give the same brand message across all markets. Sometimes it is impractical to do this; for instance when a company is   launching into a foreign market,  a specific brand message may not resonate with the culture or beliefs of the people and as such it may need to be changed.     

GAP Inc. is a high street retailer popularly known to many as GAP. The American owned fashion products company is an omni-channel retailer that deals in personal care prodcuts, accessories and apparels for men, women as well as children. It distributes the said products through its retail stores, franchise outlets as well as online marketing portals. GAP offers a variety of omni channel services under different brand names such as Old Navy, Intermix, Athleta and Banana Republic. The range of services available at GAP include; find-in-store, reserve-in-store, order-in-store and ship-in-store. The company has its headquarters in San Francisco, California in the USA. According to ‘The Gap, Inc.’ (2017) the company owns five subsidiaries namely Banana republic, Weddington Way, Old Navy, intermix and Athleta. GAP Inc. is currently the largest retailer of specialty in the United States going by net worth and volume of sales and stands at the third place in the ranking of specialty retailers with the highest number of international locations. As of the year 2008, the corporate giant was operating 3727 stores employing over 135000 people. In the financial year 2016/2017, GAP Inc. posted an after tax profit of $ 16 billion.

GAP attempted to undertake its first rebranding in 24 years in October 2010. The motivation may have been the fact that it had been long enough to make that change after using the same logo for 24 years. It could be argued that after more than two decades of using the word GAP written in uppercase inside a dark blue square, it was time to change the visual appearance of the logo to something else. According to Fox (2015) it is also evident that at the time the company was not performing well globally. According to the annual revenue posted by the company there had been a steady decline in GAP’s revenue from 2007 to 2010. In 2007, GAPs revenue was $ 15.923 million. It dropped to $ 15.763 in the following year 2008 and plummeted even further to 14.526 in the year 2009. This prompted the marketing and finance department to come up with a raft of measures to save the downward trend of profits.

At the time of GAP’s rebranding in October 2010, the high fashion retailer had been using the same logo for over two decades. On the 6^th October 2010, the company through its website changed the company logo from the well-known symbol which was the word GAP written in uppercase and enclosed in a dark blue square to the same word written as Gap in an encasing of white squares (Fox 2015, p. 63). The blue square was changed to a small blue one that sat above the letter “p” in the word Gap. GAP’s loyal customers were neither consulted nor any survey done to find out how the customers felt and would  have reacted to the changes that were to be made in the brand’s logo. The proposed new logo was updated on the company website and immediately became the subject of discussion among GAP’s loyal customers. GAP’s rebranding was meant to take on a ‘soft launch’ as was proposed by the then President Marka Hansen. Unfortunately this was not in line with the wishes of the marketing team.  

GAP’s rebranding attempt failed because of a number of reasons. Firstly from the manner in which its loyal customers reacted online, its new logo did not appeal to them. The risk of losing the brand appeal especially to the loyal customers is a real threat to the success of the rebranding process (The Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis 2018). Human beings are generally habitual beings and hence tend to protest brand changes because of some relational, symbolic and rational customs that they associate with the brand. A change in a brand logo disrupts the recognition of the brand among loyal customer base. The other reason for GAP’s failure in rebranding is the fact that it was abrupt. The risk of evoking discontent among the loyal customers can be lessened and in fact avoided by lengthening the rebranding (transition) period (Phang Ing 2012, p.275). A long transition would have avoided the feeling of discontent because it would have given the loyal customers a period of time to adapt as the company makes gradual changes to the brand. As already presented earlier in this paper, it could be argued that the exercise failed because the manner in which the company’s marketing went about it was wrong. Mr. Hansen the President preferred the ‘soft launch’ while the marketing team was in favor of implementing the changes at once.  

The impact of GAP Inc. branding attempt on its loyal customers was not what was expected. A few days after the high street retailer made the change in its company logo, it came up against the fury of angry, loyal customers who were dissatisfied with the change. Notably, the negative sensation was overwhelming. According to ‘The Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis’ (2018), loyal customers set up a twitter account to show their displeasure with the logo change and immediately attracted more than 5000 followers. In demonstration of their protest, they put up mock versions of the company logo and posted several negative comments which went viral in just minutes. GAP Inc. which enjoys a prominent online presence was confronted with an online campaign against its new logo from its very own loyal customer base and had to reconsider and suspend the change.

Tommy Hilfiger brand is among the leading designer high life-style brand all over the world which is known globaly for its celebration on the essence of classic American cool style that features Preppy with a twist design. This brand was initiated in 1985 by Tommy Hilfiger. A brand that was used to design men’s sportswear line that took it to the stratosphere of fame and fashion. The brand was used on preppy clothes with red, white and blue logo as the trademark (Haque 2016, p. 7).

The brand assiduously courted rap stars and celebrities in the 1990s when it was embraced by hip-hop world for its oversized clothe version. The brand design won the prize of the year for the American Menswear designer of the year but it was awarded in 1995 Stuart 2018, p. 97). The brand lost its popularity during the preliminary years of 2000. The large logos and big red, white and blue theme of the brand became ubiquitous. It got to the point where nobody was interested in putting on clothes with that brand on it. Since it had become autonomous.

After it had looked on the company’s mistakes that led to its unpopularity, Hilfiger was reworked and rebranded and started to exclusively sell the company’s best –selling lines only at their stores. This led the company to rise again to a whopping $3 billion from the Conglomerate Philips-Van Heusen. It  led to it receiving the council of fashion designers of America’s Geoffrey Beane Life Achievement Award in 2012. Today, the brand continues to be among the leading designer brand with more than 1400 stores in more than 90 countries that still use the brand (Lee 2013, p. 119).

According to Chad (2016), the company disseminates premium styling, quality and value to consumers all over the world using Tommy Hilfiger and Tommy Jean’s brand. The brand has got itself licensed for a range of products such as fragrances, eyewear, watches and home furnishings. Tommy Hilfiger was acquired by PVH Corp in 2010 and became a global apparel and retail company with more than 15,000 associates worldwide with a global retail sales of the TOMMY HILFIGER brand being US $7.4 billion in 2017.

As stated earlier, rebranding refers to the creation of anew appearance or look and feeling for a product that has been established or accompany. Rebholz (2018) the major goal of rebranding is to ensure that the product being disseminated influences the way customers perceive about certain product. Making the product to look more modern or contemporary and quite relevant to the customer’s needs. Ensuring that the product goes hand in hand with the changes in fashion choice and preferences that the customers have. According to Bisio (2017) Tommy Hilfiger is among the best loved designer clothing brands. It moved from being a small niche brand and started aiming at the upper class US consumers to becoming a global powerhouse in 1990s with broad youth appeal. During the 2000s, the brand suddenly got into trouble and its sells reduced from US $40 per share in to US $22.62 in 2000 which further decreased as the year came to an end.

The sales of the brand were slowing down and there most loyal clients, flagship stores in London and Beverly Hills closed down. It also went to the extent of various runway shows at fashion events all over the world to be cancelled. The brand tried to shift to denim embroidery through jeweling it but their customers never responded.it chose to rebrand itself due to overexposure that led to a leveling off of sales in 1990. The brand had its first run-up which happened to fast leading to it becoming ubiquitous (too common in the market). Plunging of the earnings with as much as 75% and fall of stock which made it to go private in 2006 (Phang Ing 2012, p.275).

The company also did choose to rebrand since the company wants to align itself better with the wants and needs of the next generation of consumers. The presence of tremendous momentum around the business driven by fresh new product strategy and a new wave of influencers is also a reason for the rebranding of the company. The rebranding is necessary since it reflects on the commitment of the company to accelerate growth and demand for the new brand Tommy Jeans with young millennial and Gen Z global clients/ consumers (Phang Ing 2012, p.275).

As presented by Ivens & Valta (2012) the rebranding from Tommy Hilfiger to Tommy Jeans label was also a necessity since there was a dire need of putting the brand on the fashion map to make it look cool. Bringing back to the fore front the original denim label back to the forefront which help recognize the long history of celebrating the pop culture through the use of unique denim styles loved by the consumers. According to Tommy Hilfiger Group SWOT Analysis’ (2017) the key reason for the rebranding of the company was the fact that it wanted to reposition its vision so that it would reflect a change in their focus, to set it apart from its competitors and also the fact that firm wanted to update its corporate image so that it would be appealing to the modern and young generation who makes the larger part of the population. The rebrand was also necessary since they wanted to distance themselves from adversary/ problem of the past.

The plan of action that was designed to achieve the rebranding rather the overall direction of operation by the company was quite technical. For any rebranding to occur in the company, it is rudimentary that there is a thorough comprehension of the reason behind the rebranding of the organization. In the case of Tommy Hilfiger, the company started by the business reason behind its rebranding. The company tried to assess their major reasons driving their efforts .the firm assessed itself and came up with their major reasons for the rebranding which included i.e. the brand no longer reflected the real image of the company, the company needed to simplify and focus its message (Jendrzejczyk .2018, p.68).

The company also did a thorough research on the firm and their target client. Given the fact that the products of the company had become too common in the market that anyone could purchase them at any bargaining store. This lead to the inferiority of the company thus raising a need for its rebranding. The research enabled the company to operate beyond internal perspectives thus having a clear perception of the market without having a blind sport and distorted information. The company thus tried to have a research that was objective oriented.

Another strategy used for rebranding was the use of strategic positioning and messaging to capture the strategy of the brand. The company tried to analyze where it has positioned itself in the market space. The position help to drive many subsequent decisions. Assessing the balancing point which entails knowing the standing position of the company at the point and where it aims to go. Which entails having the ability to support the positioning so that the brand may not be hollow. Use of a messaging architecture to every main audience. Ensuring that the messages are consistent with the overall brand and support. Having the skeleton upon which the marketing copy is going to be built (Gehring.2015, p.33).

According to Gehring (2015). the other strategy used entails building the brand’s identity. This is the part of the rebranding strategy that is used to develop the visual elements that are used to communicate the brand. Thinking about the name, tagline, logo, colors, how the business card would appear, stationary and the sort. Given the fact that the brand is the reputation and visibility of the firm thus it should be taken as the visual shorthand. It is quite important that when rebranding the company, you use strategies that can enable the company to connect better with existing clients and prospects.

In other words, rebranding can be both a terrifying and exhilarating project depending on how well the company has prepared itself to rebrand (Phang Ing 2012, p.275). Thus the first step of rebranding being the identification of the brand promises, it entails figuring out what needs to be changed. That is trying to answer the question; where are you falling as a brand? And how better can you evolve your customer services? According to Tommy Hilfiger brand, it was important to figure out whether the organization needed a new brand promise to begin with, it was necessary to rebrand given the fact that the brand promise did not serve them right anymore and given the fact that they had evolved and they weren’t what they used to be before.

Furthermore, another strategy involves getting the stock of competence on board. Even though it is not bad to involve external agencies in the rebranding process, Tommy Hilfiger relied on its own in-house marketing team to come up with the brand’s new looks and feel. Involving the clients so that you can get their opinion concerning the rebrand initiative is also important. Ensuring that you get the employees to embrace the new essence of the brand. Thus it is fundamental to identify the core of what the company is doing before rebranding (Iredale.2017, p.7).

The success of repositioning a rebrand depends not only on a distinctive brand strategy and visual identity system but also the execution launch. Given the fact that Tommy Hilfiger was repositioning its brand to Tommy Jeans, this was a change being initiated and anyone who had a relationship with the brand needed to know about this  thus one of the reasons why the brand succeeded is because they had developed  a launch communication plan. They took heed to plan their communication with the audience. Determined who needed to hear what and when and then used this as a roadmap for implementing the rebrand (Queiroz Campos.2015, p.115)

The other reason that made the brand to succeed is the fact that they tried to make their basic/ primary messages and tried tailoring them to the audience who are the prospective consumers of the products that are produced by the company (Fox 2015, p. 63).  The brand succeeded since it took all the efforts of going the efforts of going through the task of developing vital messages and communicating effectively to their prospective clients that is being consistent in what they tell their audience even if it means saying it using different terminologies but the information being communicate out remained the same. This is one of the major factors that contributed to the rebranding of Tommy Hilfiger.

According to Fox (2015) the company also persisted on training their stock of competence on the ways they could speak about the brand and answer questions from their clients consistently thus they tried to avoid sending conflicting signals to the clients from the start. Ensuring that every household from the managerial to tech service people had thoroughly understood what the brand stands for before it was launched. Through this kind of knowledge which was reinforced in the company, the brand had to thrive in the market. In addition to this, they say knowledge is power. Tommy Hilfiger ensured that it was almost everywhere they were. The brand company tried to all its best to execute and launch its plans over numerous communication points. They did not limit themselves to advertisements but tried to use every means that would enable them to get in touch with their clients (Haque 2016, p. 7).

Furthermore, Tommy Hilfiger managed to successfully rebrand and maintain their clients because they were sustaining their communication efforts thought the period and also took to into efforts to ensure that they had capitalized in investing in identity standards. They tried to blitz their consumers in several channels for more than three months and then fell into oblivion so that they create a solution that will last for quite a long period of time in the case of Tommy Hilfiger, they managed to sustain their communication links with the audience. In addition to this, the company consistently executed their rebrand while guarding against falls interpretation of their visual identification. They took into account to develop a comprehensive standards of identification. Haque (2016) argues that given the fact that the firm runs various lines in the industry, it chose to be more detailed with its brand which led to success of the rebranding.

The effects of rebranding a certain firm cannot just be measured by looking into the attribute measurement alone, it must consist of what the client tends to perceive about the standards and benefits that can be achieved from using that new brand (Queiroz Campos.2015, p.115). After the rebrand of Tommy Hilfiger, most clients reacted positively given the fact that there were both social and functional benefits that positively hennaed the relationship client satisfaction and the services that were now being offered by Tommy Hilfiger this positive reaction from the audience came about since the company tried to provide more value towards its clients.

The other effects of rebranding that was faced by Tommy Hilfiger was an increase in loyalty by customers. The rebranding had a positive effect on the audience satisfaction with the quality of products they got after the rebranding.  Many of the clients perception shifted to that of ubiquitous to that of adore given the fact that it became rare to find the brand in the bargaining market (Lockwood.2018, p.33). Unlike the first branding which had led to an almost total collapse of Tommy Hilfiger, the company had managed to improve on the quality of the brand and also the standards of the products disseminated to the clients. Most of the clients had their perception on the quality of services enhanced thus many of the clients made it their efforts to identify with the brand.

The company did not just major on improving the quality of the brand but rather more efforts were put on increasing the worth of the product thus making it possible for the clients to react positively towards the rebranding. Many of its loyal clients congratulated the company and were even draw much closer to it. They tried to associate themselves with the brand through buying most of their clothes which were highly priced (Jendrzejczyk .2018, p.68).

Firstly from the manner in which the loyal customers reacted online, the new logo of GAP did not appeal. The risk of losing the brand appeal especially to the loyal customers is a real threat to the success of the rebranding process (The Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis 2018) this was one of the major factors that lead to the failure of the brand. On the contrary Tommy Hilfiger succeeded in the rebrand because Given the fact that Tommy Hilfiger was repositioning its brand to Tommy Jeans, this was a change being initiated and anyone who had a relationship with the brand needed to know about this, thus one of the reasons why the brand succeeded is because they had developed a launch communication plan. They took heed to plan their communication with the audience. Determined who needed to hear what and when and then used this as a roadmap for implementing the rebrand.

 The other reason for GAPs failure in rebranding is the fact that it was abrupt. The risk of evoking discontent among the loyal customers can be lessened and in fact avoided by lengthening the rebranding (transition) period (Phang Ing 2012, p.275). A long transition would have avoided the feeling of discontent because it would have given the loyal customers a period of time to adapt as the company makes gradual changes to the brand. On the other hand, Tommy Hilfiger succeeded since it took a longer time to communicate the changes to its audiences thus eliminating any controversy that would have risen in the process of rebranding. The fact that they tried to make their basic/ primary messages and tried tailoring them to the audience who are the prospective consumers of the products that are produced by the company.  The brand succeeded since it took all the efforts of going through the task of developing vital messages and communicating effectively to their prospective clients that is being consistent in what they tell their audience even if it means saying it using different terminologies but the information being communicate out remained the same (Phang Ing 2012, p.275).

Thirdly GAP failed and succumbed due to the fact that it can be argued that the exercise failed because the manner in which the company’s marketing went about it was wrong. Mr. Hansen the President preferred the ‘soft launch’ while the marketing team was in favor of implementing the changes at once. The brand had forgotten that when introducing new staffs to the clients who were once used and attached to the previous vassion of the brand it needs a longer durationso that they can get used to the current one and adapt to it. Contrary to this, Tommy Hilfiger persisted on training their stock of competence on the ways they could speak about the brand and answer questions from their clients consistently thus they tried to avoid sending conflicting signals to the clients from the start. Ensuring that every household from the managerial to tech service people had thoroughly understood what the brand stands for before it was launched. Through this kind of knowledge which was reinforced in the company, the brand had to thrive in the market.

It is true to say that GAP succumbed due to the fact that it tried to shift from selling high fashion clothes to trying to acquire more affordable luxury clothes to the clients. This is a fact since when certain product floods the market, many people tend to lose interest given the fact that the product is now becoming ubiquitous in the market hence drop in value  (Phang Ing 2012, p.275) . With its efforts of trying to create a more affordable luxury, it forced the brand to do more adjustments to its marketing plan. Making its products quite cheap and affordable to its clients thus losing its value GAP had forfoten that the reason why people were interested in it previously was the fact that it was dealing with high fashion which were fancy and expensive only making it affordable to people a high living standards. Their fault came in as a result of targeting the banana republic thus making it to loose clients due to the inability to design and deliver for their target customers. The presence of their rivals who use both price, quality and products to capture the attention of the potential clients from the banana republic. This became a bigger problem to GAP since it could not adapt to the situation

Conclusion:

rebranding has got both positive and negative impacts to an organization. It can either cause the organization to be successful or leadto its  downfall. As in the case of GAP as discussed above, the company collapsed since it did no follow the write procedure during its rebranding process. Contrary to this, it has also come out clearly that when the right procedure is followed during the rejuvenation process, the company will automatically succeed as in the case of Tommy Hilfiger brand. Factors that lead to success of the company after include;

• Consulting with your clients and survaeying he market to find out their opinion.
• Involving your stocks of competence mostly instead of outsourcing
• Ensuring that you have continuous communication channels with your audience and making sure that the information conveyed is persistant to avoid anymisleading information.

Rebranding is an activity in marketing where the organization seeks to develop a new perception which is representative of the position of the brand in the minds of its consumers. Companies rebrand for a variety of reasons; the principal motivation though is always to increase its profit margin. Other reasons for rebranding are occasioned by ownership changes such as mergers, demergers.  For rebranding to be successful for any given company, it should be done when the company has already planned its communication plans and are ready to launch the brand in various audience. When the audience has been successfully selected so that it can be used as a roadmap to guide the rebranding. When this has been done, the brand can be sure to succeed in its rebrand.

When the company has managed to define their key messages and tailored them to each other which entails going through the exercise of developing rudimentary idea that will not facilitate effective communication to each individual client. In addition to this, another strategy that can used for rebranding and ensure success of the process is the use of strategic positioning and messaging to capture the strategy of the brand. The company should try to analyze where it has positioned itself in the market space. The position can help to drive many subsequent decisions. Assessing the balancing point which entails knowing the standing position of the company at the point and where it aims to go. This entails having the ability to support the positioning so that the brand may not be hollow. Use of a messaging architecture to every main audience. Ensuring that the messages are consistent with the overall brand and support. Having the skeleton upon which the marketing copy is going to be built. When this is done, the company is sure to rebrand itself without causing damage to itself.

For successful rebrand of a firm to occur, the company has to communicate a different message by trying to do a survey and interviewing clients to know their views about that given rebrand.

In addition to following the above strategies when rebranding, the success can further be facilitated through the application of the following theories; Ensuring a balance between the need for meeting the main ideology of the brand while keeping the brand in tandem with contemporary times.

The import of this theory is that the company will be able to blend of stronger brand and innovation. Strong brand is achieved as a product of the core values of the company while innovation, through investment and change. Juntunen (2014) submits that strong brands that do very well over time tend to disregard innovation and unintentionally in the course of time, they give way to competing brands to begin to beat them in the market. The other theory is: Good rebranding occasions the need for a brand to satisfy the needs of new market segments other than the one that is patronizing the brand. The emergence of new markets formerly untapped by the firms occasionally occurs as a consequence of the rebranding exercise and is indicative of the dynamism exhibited by the market.

Talking basically about fashion of the street or street fashion, it is basically more affordable to all people and quite flexible. They are mostly the heart of most people due to their simplicity. They can easlly be matched andmove aboutin them. They can easily be foundthus can be purchased at any retailshop. On the other hand, high fashion are desiner clothes which are highly acknowledged and applauded since they have been done right. Most individuals spend a lot of time talking about high fashion since it requires a lot of time for them to be done right and fit the individual. High fashion are not only expensive but they are usually so exquisite in that they can not be put onmore than once or repeated.

In both cases, high street and high fashion have the ability and potential to set a trend in the market or just to be comfortable having them on. In this contemporary generation, fashion is getting abit more popular among the young generation due to the internet and music currently due to youth culture. Currently, the link between high street and high fashion is becoming more blurry thus competitionbetween the two types of fashion is becoming more intense.  

It is not that easy for both high fashion and high street brand there is a high competition between the two brands in the market. High street brands are fast adapting to the market at cheap prices that can be afforded by anyone. Even though it was very difficult to find a designer cloth in the banana republic recently they have trickled down through side walk. Several copies and counterfeit products of the designer thus making it difficult for high fashion to sell. High street is fast coming up and taking over the high fashion which brings unrest within the high fashion designers.

References:

The Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis’ 2018, Gap, Inc. SWOT Analysis, pp. 1–7, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=132096956&site=ehost-live>.

‘Tommy Hilfiger Group SWOT Analysis’ (2017) Tommy Hilfiger Corporation SWOT Analysis, pp. 1–18. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=124724161&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 12 October 2018).

Badia, A & Medina, M 2016, ‘Hedi Trip’, WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, pp. 4–5, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=112985772&site=ehost-live>.

Bisio, R 2017, ‘How to Conduct an Effective Brand Overhaul: Effective rebranding helps tell your story and conveys a message’, Franchising World, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 24–26, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=127021574&site=ehost-live>.tp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=95858842&site=ehost-live>.

Bolhuis, W, de Jong, MDT & van den Bosch, ALM 2018, ‘Corporate rebranding: effects of corporate visual identity changes on employees and consumers’, Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3–16, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=126614299&site=ehost-live>.

Chad, P 2016, ‘Corporate Rebranding: An Employee-Focused Nonprofit Case Study’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 327–350, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=119208344&site=ehost-live>.

Dubey, J 2014, ‘Rebranding of Airtel: Did it Work?’, Journal of Marketing & Communication, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 44–49, viewed 11 October 2018, <ht

Fox, A 2015, ‘Inspiring More at Gap Inc’, HR Magazine, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 62–64, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=101204309&site=ehost-live

Gehring, F. (2015) ‘How I Did It…Tommy Hilfiger’s Chairman on Going Private to Spark a Turnaround’, Harvard Business Review, 93(7/8), pp. 33–36. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=103329577&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 12 October 2018).

Haque, U 2016, ‘Hedi Slimane: The Steve Jobs of Fashion’, Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, pp. 2–4, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=118685981&site=ehost-live>.

Hughes, A 2018, ‘The Re-Branding of Preppy’, WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, pp. 24–25, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=131494303&site=ehost-live>.

Iredale, J. (2017) ‘Tommy Hilfiger Is Having a Moment: Immense wealth and success came to Tommy Hilfiger long ago. Now he’s enjoying something more elusive: He’s cool again’, WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, pp. 1–11. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=131671449&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 12 October 2018).

Ivens, B & Valta, KS 2012, ‘Customer brand personality perception: A taxonomic analysis’, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 28, no. 9–10, pp. 1062–1093, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=78299440&site=ehost-live>.

Jendrzejczyk, A. (2018) ‘Tommy Hilfiger’s Secret Weapon’, Bloomberg Businessweek, (4561), pp. 67–69. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=128343512&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 12 October 2018).

Juntunen, M 2014, ‘Interpretative narrative process research approach to corporate renaming’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 112–127, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=95390543&site=ehost-live>.

Lee, Z 2013, ‘Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: Exploring tensions in the nonprofit sector’, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 29, no. 9–10, pp. 1124–1142, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=90091870&site=ehost-live>.

Lockwood, L. (2018) ‘Next TommyNow Runway Show to Touch Down in Shanghai: The fall 2018 show will present the first Tommy x Lewis collection designed by Tommy Hilfiger and Formula One World Champion Lewis Hamilton’, WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, p. 28. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=130487949&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 12 October 2018)

Luck, K 2012, ‘The delicate art of rebranding: Retaining equity while creating a fresh face’, Journal of Brand Strategy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 50–56, viewed 11 October 2018, http O’Reilly, L 2013, ‘Dos and Don’ts of corporate rebranding’, Marketing Week (Online Edition), p. 3, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=89011084&site=ehost-live>.://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=83407649&site=ehost-live

Mabkhot, HA, Shaari, H & Salleh, SM 2017, ‘The Influence of Brand Image and Brand Personality on Brand Loyalty, Mediating by Brand Trust: An Empirical Study’, Jurnal Pengurusan, vol. 50, pp. 1–18, viewed 11 October 2018, httpLunardo, R, Gergaud, O & Livat, F 2015, ‘Celebrities as human brands: an investigation of the effects of personality and time on celebrities’ appeal’, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 31, no. 5–6, pp. 685–712, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=101712485&site=ehost-live>.://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=125534814&site=ehost-live

Miller, D, Merrilees, B & Yakimova, R 2014, ‘Corporate Rebranding: An Integrative Review of Major Enablers and Barriers to the Rebranding Process’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 265–289, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=96855150&site=ehost-live>.

Phang Ing, G 2012, ‘Corporate Rebranding and the Effects on Consumers’ Attitude Structure’, International Journal of Business & Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 255–278, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=85407024&site=ehost-live>.

Queiroz Campos, A. and Schmithausen Schmiegelow, S. (2015) ‘A (não) adoção das tendências de moda pela marca Tommy Hilfiger: estudo da coleção outono/inverno 2013/2014’, Strategic Design Research Journal, 8(3), pp. 105–115. doi: 10.4013/sdrj.2015.83.01

REBHOLZ, JS 2018, ‘Bridging the Gap’, Design: Retail, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 74–79, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=128374539&site=ehost-live>.

Shetty, AS 2011, ‘The Rush for Corporate Rebranding in India: Rejuvenation with a Rationale or Irrational Exuberance?’, IUP Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 53–62, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=71423493&site=ehost-live>.

Stuart, H 2018, ‘Corporate branding and rebranding: an institutional logics perspective’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 96–100, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=127990962&site=ehost-live>.

The Gap, Inc 2017, Gap, Inc. MarketLine Company Profile, 24 July, pp. 1–23, viewed 11 October 2018, <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=124713043&site=ehost-live>.