Understanding 2021’s Rebranding Spree: Pfizer, Kia, Burger King and GM
In less than a month, four major companies, Pfizer, Kia, Burger King and GM, changed their brand identities. In this article, we review each project thoroughly from brand strategy and design perspectives.
Why Would A Company Change Its Logo?
As a rule of thumb, four significant scenarios require a company to change its logo. Those are:
1. When the company changes its name (very rare)
2. When two companies merge (rare)
3. When the company wants to reposition and renew its brand (often)
4. When the company wants to revitalize its identity or make it more consistent (frequently)
All four re-branding projects -Burger King, Pfizer, Kia and GM- fall under the third category. What those global giants are saying, in a nutshell, is this:
“The public has an antiquated perception about who we are and what we do. We now have cutting-edge products. But we look behind the times.”
While those companies’ objectives are more or less the same, their re-branding projects’ level of success varies quite a bit. So, here are our thoughts on all four of them — ranked from most successful to least successful.
PFIZER
Most brands want to keep things fresh all the time. Sometimes they change for the sake of changing. By doing so, they stay up-to-date and salient. That trend is more visible, particularly among those brands, which appeal to a younger audience.
That’s not the case with Pfizer. Unless you are a designer, someone working in the pharmaceutical industry, an investor of the firm, or a patient who uses one of their medications routinely, you wouldn’t have a clear idea about Pfizer’s brand. And that’s OK. Nobody should ponder over what a pharma company’s logo looks like.
That was Pfizer’s communication challenge: How to grab the public’s attention to convey that they are at the bleeding edge of scientific research?
With the COVID-19 vaccine, the company caught the lightning in a bottle.
Before, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline were all the same in the public’s mind: “Just another big pharma company that I don’t care about.”
However, throughout the pandemic, we started to feel more positive about the pharmaceutical industry, as we see the vaccine as the saviour.
Thanks to its vaccine, Pfizer is on the news 24/7. That is a scarce opportunity for the company to convey its messages through visuals.
In reality, no one will notice that Pfizer replaced its oval, pill-like logo with a helix one. And that’s how it should be.
The visual message is very subtle and sublime. The helix shape hints at DNA, which evokes breakthrough science.
Had they launched the new logo 18 months ago, no one would care since we would ignore the message as a corporate talk. But now, with the vaccine, Pfizer is a much more salient brand name. And the understated visual change indirectly conveys the company’s elevated scientific mission.
Strategy Grade: A
The new Pfizer brand identity has been designed by a New York-based agency called Team.
With the collaborative effort of 24 people, including creative directors John Clark, Amy Globus, and designer Sabri Akin - whose design was chosen to be the historical new identity, Team helped Pfizer turn one of the most catastrophic health crises in human history into a major marketing opportunity.
Writing a review for a logo’s visual design is always tricky. If you are a professional logo designer, you likely refrain from criticizing a logo design in public unless it is incredibly problematic or shows fundamental design flaws. The reason is that you were not a part of the process yourself, and you don’t want to be unfair to the person or the team who created the design.
Maybe they designed ten significantly better versions, 5 of which were masterpieces, but the client didn’t like any of them and asked for something they visualized in their minds.
Or maybe the logo looks a bit boring, but there is a meaningful story behind it. Without knowing everything about the process — which is impossible if you didn’t work on the logo, it may not make sense to talk about the final design.
After this ‘disclaimer’ I wanted to share with you, here are my thoughts about the new Pfizer logo.
In the official video above, Pfizer says:
“We are unlocking the pill to reveal the DNA at the heart of Pfizer.”
They state their purpose as ‘Breakthroughs that change patients’ lives’, and they visualize that with a simplistically stylized DNA image, which makes good sense.
In single colour applications, they did a nice job by detaching the shapes and creating a continuous look without using repeating lines or other elements to fake the 3D shape. It’s simple and easy to use in different mediums, in different sizes.
When we look solely at the logotype, ignoring the emblem for a second, we see a subtle yet strong refinement.
The transformation Pfizer did in 1990, as an upgrade to 1940’s design, was quite strong. Then it was refined even more in 2009 with a more modern approach and a gradient background.
The pill shape perfectly nested the long tail of the letter ‘f’ and created a pleasing negative space at the bottom part of the logo.
In this year’s redesign, the pill disappeared, and the long ‘f’, which became an iconic part of the Pfizer logotype stayed.
However, it creates a visual separation between ‘P’ and the rest of the name without the pill. Could that be solved by slightly cutting the tail and shrinking the upper part? Maybe… Is that a serious flaw? No.
Overall, Pfizer’s new logo design is nice, and also simple and flexible enough to be easily used on any occasion.
Congratulations to Pfizer and Team for the iconic work.
Design Grade: B
KIA
Perceptions are like starlight. They always lag behind reality. Back in the day, Kia used to make bargain-bin cars. But that’s no longer the case. The brand has been on the rise steadily for a while. Actually, it posted its best retail sales year ever in 2020.
Moreover, the Korean automaker has a new corporate strategy built-around creating sustainable mobility solutions, dedication to electric vehicles, and sustainable manufacturing.
So, while unlike Pfizer, Kia didn’t have a global life-changing success, it nonetheless had an excellent opportunity to launch its new brand. And they ran away with it thanks to a spectacular firework show made possible by the latest technology.
Now, did Kia really need a new logo? Probably no. After all, it became an automotive juggernaut despite the old logo.
But suppose you have never owned a Kia. In that case, the new logo — in conjunction with the new tagline (‘Movement that inspires’), the aggressive and relentless marketing that will ensue and their new model of cars — could make you consider buying one.
From a strategic standpoint, the branding is a success, for it will grant Kia the attention it deserves — especially in the long-run.
If you have never owned a Kia, the new logo — in conjunction with the new tagline (‘Movement that inspires’), the aggressive and relentless marketing that will ensue and their new model of cars — could make you consider buying one.
Strategy Grade: A
When it comes to the design, we immediately realize a serious legibility problem. It could easily be mistaken for a “K” and a backwards “N” instead of ‘KIA.’
There is a letter ‘И’ in the Cyrillic alphabet, which can lead to an even bigger issue in specific countries. If you are not familiar with the brand or get exposed to this logo in a situation where it’s not placed on a car, you would have difficulty understanding the brand’s name, which is against the very first goal of every logo.
Kia is not a new brand, and with repeated exposure, the problem should eventually dissipate, but it doesn’t change the fact that the logo design is problematic.
It’s not easy, but we can say that the design is pretty strong and iconic when we ignore that issue. The forward motion and the angled cut-outs create a more dynamic and futuristic look, which nicely matches the new slogan, ‘Movement that inspires’. When compared to the previous logo, it is significantly more modern and up-to-date.
Design Grade: C+
BURGER KING
Burger King’s new logo is actually its older logo. To put it more aptly, it is a revitalized version of the logo used until 1999. So, what’s the story here?
As a rule of thumb, brand strategy always follows the business strategy. Not the other way around. The business sets the objectives. The brand gets them done.
The old logo had a blue swoosh, an unnatural-looking bun, and an artificial shininess. Why? Because that logo reflected the then business strategy of Burger King to focus on speed. That is to say, 20 years ago, the company made a conscious decision to bring forth the process at the expense of food.
The new business strategy reverses that decision. Now, the company wants to be known for its taste and food quality. That’s a tall order for a fast-food chain.
Granted, that is a better logo than the previous one. It is in line with Burger King’s big and bold, playfully irreverent brand essence. But, how successful will it be in improving Burger King’s image? That’s hard to tell.
The logo constitutes roughly 1/4th of the visual identity. Brand identity is more than a visual identity. It consists of verbal, sensory, experiential elements. Finally, brand identity is not the same as the brand image, which is people’s perception of the brand.
Credit Burger King for making recent improvements to taste and food quality by removing colours, flavours, and preservatives from artificial sources from menu items. It also avoids MSG and high-fructose corn syrup. But making the brand feel less synthetic and more real will take much more than a logo.
Strategy grade: B
The new Burger King brand identity has been designed by Jones Knowles Ritchie “to make the brand feel less synthetic and artificial, and more real, crave-able and tasty”. Those are their words and they sound pretty accurate.
The logo itself is only slightly different than the ones designed in 1969 and 1994. Still, the overall identity system is new, refreshing and bold in a beautiful way thanks to Flame Sans, the delicious custom typeface.
The previous logo, designed in 1999 by Sterling Brands, looked like an upgrade to the older version, but, over time, it’s realized that it was ‘following a trend’ rather than coming up with an iconic identity. Even though the brand is wildly popular, that logo never became an ‘icon’ for Burger King. It was weakest among the competitors, including McDonald’s’ famous yellow ‘M’, KFC’s Colonel Sanders, and the Pizza Hut’s hat.
In 2017, Signs.com conducted a wonderful study about how memorable famous logos are. They asked 150 Americans to draw logos from their memory. Here are the results for Burger King:
Only 27% of the participants visualized the previous logo in their minds. 21% of them went for the old one, which was revived this year. Even after being exposed to the 1999 logo for 18 years in every corner of the country, their minds reminded them of the older logo. It was more iconic and, therefore, memorable.
This new overall identity system upgrades that already memorable logo and creates a more promising approach with a bold and structurally well-defined personality.
Does it feel like Burger King confesses its mistake by striking out the 1999 logo and going back to the old one? Well, yes. But is it a bad thing? We don’t think so.
Design grade: A-
GM
Unlike the previous three brands, General Motors is the parent company, owning many end-user brands. People might be emotionally attached to their Cadillacs and Buicks. But there is not much feelings surrounding the corporate GM brand.
This brands’ primary audience is investors. Consequently, this re-branding project’s primary target is not the general public but the investors, whom GM has been trying to convince its own commitment to electric vehicles.
Recently, Tesla’s stock value eclipsed the combined values of GM and Ford. As a response, the company recently committed to spending $27 billion on electric and autonomous vehicles through 2025. The Detroit-based will launch 30 new electric vehicles around the world.
This re-branding project aims to communicate to investors the company’s overall commitment to electrification rather than sell any one vehicle. Will it succeed?
As an umbrella company for a family of auto brands, GM’s success depends on its auto brands. An EV Cadillac sounds nice, but how about an EV Hummer? How authentic would that sustainability message be?
Truth be told, GM did not need to change its logo. Instead of sending subliminal messages (the negative space in the “m” is meant to evoke the shape of an electrical plug), the company should tell the story of EV1. That would demonstrate that it is in its DNA to be a revolutionary brand ahead of its time.
Strategy Grade: D
From a design perspective, GM seems to keep going backwards in time. Shiny gradients and emboss effects expired years ago. In logo design, you don’t have to follow the newest trends all the time and change your logo to adapt to them, for sure, but you shouldn’t go with an already old-fashioned design approach either, especially if you are a 113-year-old giant.
Does this logo visually reflect the ‘electrification’ of the company? Well, ‘yes’ to a certain degree, but not in the form of a brand identity. It looks more like a secondary element as Intel’s famous ‘Intel Inside’ badge.
GM’s executive director of Global Industrial Design says, “…this logo signifies creative and innovative thinking across the global General Motors family”, but as branding professionals, we kindly feel the opposite. GM’s new logo is far away from signifying ‘creativity and innovation.’ In fact, it shows a lack of those values.
And finally… A ‘little’ detail that shows a lack of attention to detail in the new identity. On GM’s website, there is this logotype:
Probably every professional designer would sigh at the annoying shift of the baseline in this look. ‘Motors’ is slightly shifted to the bottom, but it’s so subtle that it looks like a mistake, which probably is.
While ending our review here, let’s leave the stage to this GM customer and his hilariously accurate respond to the new GM logo:
