Dissertation

Contents Page 2. List of illustrations 3. Introduction 5. Main Body 14. Conclusion 17. Images 21. Bibliography

Illustration Index Figure 1 Naked Smoothie Influencer Post, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/new-marketing-royalty-rise-digitalinfluencers/ Figure 2 Burberry Logo Comparison, https://www.leadersnet.at/luxury-news/32489,burberry-startet-mit-neuem-logodurch.html Figure 3 Burberry Monogram, https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/burberry-rebrand-history Figure 4 Rebranded GAP Logo, https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/negative-space-logo-design-michael-bierut/ Figure 5 Traditional & Current GAP Logo, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gap_logo.svg Figure 6 Public Visual Response, https://medium.com/@helendooley/rebranding-if-it-aint-broke-don-t-fix-it-9d6737b6ca07 Figure 7 Moschino x H&M - Gigi Hadid, https://www2.hm.com/en_gb/life/culture/inside-h-m/moschino-and-h-m-in-designercollaboration.html Figure 8 John Lewis and Partners Rebrand, https://www.pentagram.com/work/the-john-lewis-partnership/story Figure 9 John Lewis Inspiration, https://www.pentagram.com/work/the-john-lewis-partnership/story

2

Introduction ‘Being a consumer is about identifying ones needs and satisfying them by choosing, buying and using a product or service’ (Slade-Brooking, 2016). A person bases these decisions through a process in which they take into consideration a more subjective approach, their choices can be seen to define a person’s particular lifestyle; which in turn begins to determine one’s culture, society, social group and class. With such pressure to be a representative of identity, the discussion of whether brands are being forced into refreshing due to the aggressive evolution of consumer culture must be raised. Is it possible that a brand no longer controls its own output into the market? ‘The consumption of market-made commodities and desire-inducing marketing symbols is central to consumer culture, and yet the perpetuation and reproduction of this system is largely dependent on the exercise of free personal choice in the private sphere of everyday life’ (Holt, 2002). Holt indicates that consumers have a choice in which products they invest in, this self-expressionistic method of consumption leads to a large competition in the market. Whereby brands are competing not only for their desired audience, but to represent the core values of the brand in a way that advances their competitors to retain their identity, without such, they must refresh to remain a part of the industry at all.

A brand refresh is a process in which strategy meets visualisation, companies do so to represent progression; envisaging a development in brand direction. Some brands do so to revert to their original processes/identity, in order to remind themselves and their audience of their core values which drive their business. Brand values change and develop as they move forward with the laws of commerce, a brand must visually represent their stance on social, economic, and political issues in order to retain a seat in the minds of the conscious consumer. This is becoming further evident as the main target audience with the income to be able to spend on brands is emerging from younger generations, who have been taught about the dangers of endorsing nonsustainable products and production methods.

Many brands see it important to refresh in order to stay relevant to their consumer base to remain current and relevant in their customers purchases. Brands are representing an image, but no longer a sole image of their own identity but a perception for the outside world to presume of their consumers identity. This is depicted

by Olins: ‘brands have come up in the world. Today we mostly take a product’s 3

functional characteristics for granted and while brands are still all about image, it is no longer just their own image – it is also our image’ (Olins, 2011). Further extending the questionability of whether a brand refresh is initiated due to a correction of inconsistency in the brand image or the image of the consumer.

4

Main Body When a brand begins their journey, part of their strategy curation is locating and managing to retain a target audience. Yet due to the fact that a consumer has free choice into what they purchase, as previously mentioned by Holt, ‘this system is largely dependent on the exercise of free personal choice’ (Holt 2002), it gives the ability for the consumer to adapt the way in which that brand is to be perceived by their peers; and other easily-influenced members of society, in the way that the consumer uses it.

Brands with a specific demographic must move with the culture that is associated with that particular group of people or lose relevance in the midst of what that audience desires to attract/the image they portray, consumer culture has led us to a marketplace led through neo-tribalism. Neo-tribalism is a term used ‘to describe the groupings arising in contemporary society as a variant of the tribal life described by ‘classical’ anthropologists.’ (Jury, 1996).

As the marketplace of commodities has moved from an era of a free market, and individualism, neo-tribalism has created a sense of belonging within a community through the purchase of particular items. Alan Warde claims ‘though necessarily aware of the styles associated with neo-tribes, the consumer chooses the group as much as, and probably more than the style; and membership of the group commands a certain path through the enormous number of commodities on sale’ (Celia Jury, 1996). Warde states here the reason why once a product is released to a consumer the company shall find it next to impossible to regulate the people who buy it; they may do this through costings, release of visual content that only appeals to a particular neo-tribe etc. Yet once a member of a neo-tribe, outside of that audience, begins to adopt the use of said product other members will follow suit, in fear of becoming excluded from that community. ‘Evidence suggests that by belonging to brand communities, consumers may be able to fulfil several of their needs and desires, including the need for a unique identity, for community, and for being part of something larger than themselves.’ (Burns, 2012) Burns is highlighting the elements of belonging to a brand community a consumer would be removing themselves from through not buying into the brands they believe best represent themselves; through doing so they do not only remove an element of their ‘own’ identity but also that of the larger community.

The basis of a neo-tribe has been highly extended through the use of social media, a platform that allows people to post imagery and content they create in a free 5

and expressive way. Arguably, brands lose control of the way the consumer is perceiving the brand; thus, are forced to change their imagery/identity to connect with their desired consumer. ‘In relating to social media marketing, the biggest fear of companies and brands is to give up the control over the content, and the frequency of information; however, it is essential for marketers to realise that reviews and discussions, as user-generated contents, serve to demonstrate a company’s transparency.’ (Weber 2007.) It could be argued that social media marketing is to the discretion of what is created by a user, as this is outputting an image of a brand story without the ability for the company to standardise it. Brands are combatting this through the use of online influences, paying people to become brand ambassadors in order to put content out to a consumer which would be following the ‘exemplary’ members of the neo-tribes they wish to gain following from. An example of such can be seen in figure 1 (Cook, 2018), kate.lavie – a verified, high followed Instagram lifestyle blogger, who is commissioned by Naked Smoothies, to become part of the conversation in a neo-tribe that is led by beauty, fashion and health. Which reflect the core values of Naked Smoothies, to show the products as part of her daily essentials, thereby very obviously telling her following to buy into the brand, and in turn that lifestyle.

The over-arching argument of freedom of choice in the market and neo-tribalism makes it evident to me that the consumer has a high influence on whether or not a brand must refresh in order to stay relevant to their target audience. Yet it is not essentially needed as they do have methods through means of new communication within social media, to influence groups of people who have the characteristics that don’t only embody the values of the brand but display them in a way that appears aspirational; making the only way for the consumer to join this neo-tribe and become part of the community through the endorsement of the brand. Though unable to mediate, and limit what content they are able to control, brands are able to now present themselves in such a way that can oversaturate the opposing media to present themselves in a new light. Indicating that consumers do not force brands to refresh to develop with evolving consumer culture, as new media is allowing them to reposition themselves in a way that allows them to hold onto their identity.

The actions of some of the market leaders, who require more of a stance on the cores of their identity driving the brand vision, such as high-end fashion houses, show a more traditional stance on developing their brand image. The past decade has seen many of brand-refreshes within the luxury fashion industry, such as Yves Saint Laurent, 6

Calvin Klein and Burberry. Interestingly Burberry have commissioned the same graphic designer, Peter Saville, to refresh the brand as Calvin Klein used. Indicating as a need to not only refresh in order to stay updated with the changing conception of consumer culture but to also keep up with direct competition with other brands.

Burberry’s reasoning behind them rebrand indicates precisely the way that brands are being forced into refreshing through the evolving conception of consumer culture. Burberry’s previous branding was focused on their heritage, featuring a traditional iconic serif type wordmark. Complimented by a logo consisting of a knight jousting encompassing the word ‘Prorsum’ meaning forwards, depicting the brands direction and value of fashion. A brands image, as previously discussed, is upheld by the people who are presenting that brand to the world, through the way that brand is consumed, and the lifestyle/attributes of the person consuming it. ‘Luxury goods are more than simply objects of consumption. They have become a language, a non-verbal method of self-expression and social dialogue’ (Butman and Silverstein, 2014).

Throughout the early noughties through a change in audience, more working-class people began to buy into the brand, the brand blames this on counterfeits being largely produced replicating the visual styles of Burberry, rather than facing the fact that their consumer base has changed – as it didn’t fit in with their ideal consumer image.

The fashion house has recently refreshed in order to become ‘re-energized’ which also saw the burning of £28.3 Million worth of stock, in order to protect the brands identity, not allowing for discounted stock to dilute their brand image and therefore become unavailable to people with less income, who the brand is trying to direct away from. ‘Burberry has careful processes in place to minimise the amount of excess stock we produce. On the occasions when disposal of products is necessary, we do so in a responsible manner and we continue to seek ways to reduce and revalue our waste,’ (BBC News, 2018) claims a Burberry spokesman. Although the brands evident attempt at trying to justify the disposal of the commodities, it is unmistakeable that this occurred just after a brand refresh. Within the whole process of Burberry changing in order to retain their up-market status, and be able to progress with it, the refresh of the brand was with the understanding that majority of their sales now took place overseas. They needed to find a way to redesign the logo and imagery in order to retain their traditional British roots, whilst showing a step forward with fashion – to fulfil the desires of their target audience. The rebrand was also inspired by the development of the brands online presence, their website was redesigned to be simplistic, focusing on the fashion; which 7

led to a redesign of their Regent St flagship store, to give a seamless experience from digital to retail. As can be seen in figure 2, each step was carefully considered, the monogram (figure 3) had also been reimagined to infit with the needs of a new luxury modern consumer. Seeing the use of block colour divided through a black semi-bold line; giving the feel of a digital led piece, a language which their new evolving consumer is part of in their everyday life. Allowing the visuals to be more familiar and therefore more able to become part of their everyday routine, encouraging the endorsement of the brand.

The general change to the direction from Burberry exemplifies the way in which consumer decisions directly influences a brand to refresh. As previously stated, Burberry claim their rebrand was due to counterfeits being overly produced and therefore tainting the value of the brand, and moreover not moving with their consumer, yet it could be argued that these points are directly linked. Due to the expensive nature of the brand there is a level of inaccessibility of the products that Burberry were producing, cheaper fakes were being made to make them more accessible, to the market which was interested in them. Burberry’s refresh responded to this, yet not to benefit the consumer who was attempting to break into the brand, rather the audience Burberry defined to be associated with the brand themselves, through disregard for their own stock. Yet the strategy seems to have been successful, since the brand’s ‘most recent financial year to 31 March, the company reported a 5% rise in profit to £413m, with sales little changed at £2.7bn.’ (BBC News, 2018), displaying how societies view on consumer culture, which in turn affects their view of the brand, forces a brand into refreshing; to stick with their own values.

As previous arguments have revealed, when brands understanding of their consumer develops, so must their direction; whether this be to retain their identity or to preserve their target audience. There have been cases in which brands have been arrogant in their approach to refreshing themselves, without having a strong need to do so - other than their own desire to become re-energised in the eyes of the consumer.

GAP is a prime example of this. On October 6th 2010, GAP released a refreshed idea of their visual branding (figure 4) completely contrasting against their previous identity (figure 5) which lasted a whole 6 days, the overall situation cost the brand $100 million in design, production, promotion and removal costs. As can be seen, the brand changed direction from a very equal and highly recognised visual to a more modern and simple approach. Consisting of a Helvetica formatted wordmark and smaller blue 8

gradient square, in attempt to make links to the previous branding. Also, to keep the attention of their loyal audience whilst gaining interest from a younger market, which would be more intrigued by the use of a simplistic modern approach. Making the brand more familiar with brands that already fit into a younger consumer’s lifestyle, in the age of minimalist presentation in online presence. Through the use of this consistency of instore physical visuals, the logic is that this will create a consistent balance in the brand and therefore draw this new audience in at an accelerated rate. This is a trend seen within other audiences; as previously discussed, this was used by Burberry to engage with a more tech savvy customer. The logo was also changed accordingly to keep brand consistency.

GAP claimed through a spokesperson that ‘It’s a refresh that had to happen… aligning with the brand’s target customer’ (Isaac, 2010). Thus, directly claiming that they wanted to reposition themselves in the way that aligned with how their consumer had developed, yet through doing so in such a dramatic change they rejected their current consumer. Through this misjudgement of attempt to cultivate a new generation of consumer, there was an uproar from the public, showing extreme backlash against the change. Including 2,000 comments on the brand’s Facebook post announcing the logo, a Twitter account gaining 5,000 followers discussing their thoughts on how unfitting the new logo was, as well as a ‘Make your own Gap logo’ website. Which went viral and prompted almost 14,000 parody versions (figure 6), which at the time was a substantial impression for the size of these social media platforms in 2010. These statistics show the way that the brand refresh, rather than bringing a new audience to the conversation, simply riled up the loyal opinions of its current customer. As stated by GAP, the rebrand is ‘part of how the brand is evolving,’ (Isaac, 2010) unfortunately as this was a first step of that evolution it did not coincide with the identity/clothing or interests of the consumer of the brand. Therefore, it made the authenticity of the brand even more questionable.

As discussed by Olins, ‘Nothing creates more scepticism than an organisation which claims to have changed, when it hasn’t’ (Olins, 2010). Such a dramatic difference in visual identity GAP, pushed the current customer away, allowing them to question the brands engagement of their opinion. Moreover, they did not engage with a new customer, who would be refrained from endorsement of the brand due to the vast negative comments circulating with it. The rebrand reverted back to the original brand identity after just 6 short days of being live, ‘We've learned a lot in this process. And we

9

are clear that we did not go about this in the right way.’ (Halliday, 2010) admits Marka Hansen, the president of GAP in North America.

Without the consideration of the evolution of consumer culture, whilst also considering where a brand sits, brands can appear arrogant in assuming their market level - such as GAP, who assumed they must evolve. On assumption that their consumer will also be developing, ahead of their time. This is a mistake that GAP made, the change was not driven through the need to change, rather directed by the desperation of the brand to not become irrelevant. This was not a necessary measure, and presents the question why brands feel the need to refresh before they’re pushed into it by their consumer? One reasoning is the ability larger older brands have to sell new luxury products at a lower cost, whilst still retaining their prestige name. Newer brands/more high street focused brands feel pressured into refreshing and updating, to be able to position themselves in a spot in which they have command over their consumer and be able to maintain their stance within the industry. Without doing so they risk becoming redundant to their consumers who are trading in for more affordable luxury items. Hermes for example offer belts, which include the distinctive ‘H’ gold piece; starting at £200, yet they also sustain a regular increase of sales from their iconic ‘Birkin’ bag, ranging in prices up to £300,000+. This mix of product range commands a sense of class and premium over the more conventional relatively ‘affordable’ options.

In comparison to the super-premium products, which allows a brand to retain a level of upmarket mass prestige whilst becoming more available to a larger audience; as discussed by Brutman, Silverstein and Fiske ‘Such Old-Luxury brands have mastered a neat trick: becoming simultaneously more accessible and more aspirational’ (Brutman, Fiske and Silverstone, 2013). A fear of this being on the horizon, may have initiated the change in GAP’s identity, which neither engaged their current or new consumer. There are other ways in which brands can both keep their current customer and content whilst also enticing in a new type of consumer; without the rejection of their established visual identity.

As the previous analogy discloses, larger brands have the ability to create an illusion of mass prestige consumerism. This allows for a larger audience to become associated and loyal to the brand. More accessible brands such as H&M take on a similar method to bring in and captivate a new audience by mirroring the desires of high-end brands through collaborations. Most recently this was between H&M and Moschino, the luxury designer created a series of pieces that encompass the brand 10

values of both fashion production companies (example figure 7), allowing the audience to be able to gain access to Moschino clothing on a more affordable level. In doing so they were also endorsing the H&M brand, making them more likely to become a returning customer of theirs. This is a technique that is recognised in brand management. ‘It’s important that youngsters are talking about H&M. We offer them enough triggers to start the conversation’ (Bergh and Behrer, 2016) states Jörgen Anderson, former global brand director of H&M. This clarifies that through the use of mass-prestige consumerism a new audience can be introduced; whilst simultaneously retaining interests and styles concurrently of the existing loyal customer.

Generally, the study of the way in which GAP handled their brand refresh identifies the egotism some brands obtain. They wish to remain relevant to their audience and open the brand up to promote endorsement of their brand to new people, although through lack of prominent need to develop they only pushed away any chance of engaging with a new audience and mis-engaged with their current one. Directly bringing to light the fact that evolving consumer culture is not forcing the brands to refresh, yet the fear of said evolution has, resulting in pre-mature action. In turn making the brand become more irrelevant than before they began the process of refreshing the brand. It also highlights the goals of GAP’s refresh could have simply been done through other methods, such as collaboration with higher end brands, rather than rejecting their values and loyal custom through a complete visual redirection. Showing even if they were pressured into evolving with their consumer, a refresh would not have been required for the type of brand they are and the audience they were trying to encourage.

Evidence that evolution in consumer culture forces brands to refresh, has been clear in a recent change to one of the UK’s largest supermarket businesses – the John Lewis partnership, consisting of John Lewis and Waitrose. The refresh saw not only a visual change but also a name change “aligning the rebrand with more strategic initiatives ensures the changes are more than skin deep” (Vizard,2018). John Lewis’ decision to do this could be due to the fact that their consumer is developing, a younger market is becoming more conscious of their purchasing choices. John Lewis is a brand that takes into consideration the community their stores effect. Thus, through a refreshed identity they would be able to captivate this audience. This can be seen throughout the rebrand itself, their identity encompasses not only the way the business is moving forward but also directly takes it back to its roots. The logic behind this 11

method is to become relevant to a new audience, whilst reminding the current consumer of the reason and values they love from the brand. ‘In an age where consumers increasingly expect brands to be principled and good, the Partnership’s commitment to John Spedan Lewis’ original model is an authentic differentiator that it can be proud of. The new identity celebrates this by enshrining the Partners into the forefront of the John Lewis and Waitrose brands, with the addition of ‘& Partners’ to their logotypes.’ (Pentagram, 2018) Pentagram here discusses the way in which they embodied these values through the design, as can be seen in figure 8. This exemplification of displaying the values to entice in custom, is also evident in the way the logo was designed itself. The logo was a direct snippet of the very first John Lewis logo (figure 9), taking the consumers who had already been converted into a loyal customer back to a visual familiarity. This reminds them of their love for the brand and resonates their custom for years to come. The decision to change the name to include partners also moves the brand away from their traditional hours of brands, into a singular entity, which in turn allows for ‘an endorsement structure in which the two companies’ linked names ensure that the brands are now more closely and explicitly aligned in the minds of target consumers.’ (Vizard, 2018). Further displaying how the brand are attempting to bring in a new audience and promote the endorsement of the entire brand, rather than just a section. It is clear this was their intention, otherwise the brand would have remained as a house of brands. This highlights that the refresh of the brand was led by the anticipation of engaging with a new type of consumer, thus the refresh had been forced by the way consumer culture has evolved.

The rebrand appears to be forced in order for the brand to develop into something that a new age of customer can find attractive. Yet it could be argued just as much that the brand’s decision to refresh was off its own accord, as the refresh was briefed to Pentagram in 2015, 3 years prior to its release. In 2016 John Lewis’ impression rating on the YouGov annual brand ranking scores were 51%, in comparison to their 2018 score of 46%, showing a drop in overall notoriety of the brand.

This would give the initial impression that the brand, due to their timing, used the rebrand to create a stir around the brand, and thus bring in more customers. Yet the rebrand happened over a period of time, that was released in time when it was needed, and therefore could be strategically planned, allowing for it to be more effective. This signifies the brand foresaw the need to change in order to become part of the conversation with a new conscious consumer, whose buying habits are different than 12

their previous audience. Through rebranding a new visual identity was created for the Partnership. The use of distinctive graphic lines allows for a clear recognisable arrangement that can be translated in a variety of medias, through print to digital. The manipulability of the design allows for an easier transition from online to instore experience. Simplifying the nature meant the full logo isn’t even needed to visible on screen for a user to know that the webpage they are on, is part of the John Lewis Partnership. The brand makes this clear in their creatives’ decision of using a varied colour palette, described by Pentagram to have “infinite” combinations, supporting their belief for a strong simplified visual identity. Moving towards this direction, which works better for online platforms, is opening up an opportunity for interest in the business from millennials, further showing the way in which, the brand has had to develop to be able to evolve in line with consumer culture. This is something many brands have caught onto and exploited in order to open up in store sales to a younger audience, as explored

by Chris Paradysz, the CEO of marketing agency PM Digital ‘four or five brands, including Chanel and Burberry, that have somewhat harmoniously integrated digital strategies to evolve into store sales’. Therefore, the way in which consumers are developing, and consequently the way that consumer culture is evolving, directly led to the brand pre-empting a need for change. Through creatively redirecting the branding to engage with a new audience; thus, being providing evidence that the brand was forced into refreshing by the evolution of consumer culture.

13

Conclusion Investigation into the ways that brands refresh, or do not in some cases, has made it evident that through freedom of choice a brand must fight for the loyalty of a consumer; in fear of them becoming dependable on a different brand to provide a particular service/product. Although there are alternative methods of gaining a strong representation of the way in which brands can output their beliefs to the public, rather than solely through their visual identity. Through new methods of communication, and the opportunity to employ carefully selected brand ambassadors, social media allows the chance for a brand to represent themselves in a life setting of someone who embodies their ideal consumer. Which allows them to directly tap into the lives of people who aspire to follow the lifestyle choices of said ambassadors; allowing them to directly appeal to their ideal target consumer. It could be argued that if a brand is strong enough in the first place, they don’t need to fear the notion of becoming irrelevant to their consumers developing taste. This is a process that the brand Kodak tapped into, as discussed by David Aaker in his book exploring the ways to create a strong brand ‘Kodak with its block letters and bright yellow background, has been used for over a hundred years to crystallize and communicate the essence of Eastman’s products and organization. The brand (and the company it represents) survives today primarily because of four factors: a commitment to quality, the generation of awareness, the fostering of loyalty, and- most important – the development of a strong and clear brand identity’ (Aaker, 1996). Strong visuals lead to a successful positioning in the market and therefore they wouldn’t feel as the pressure to develop with the evolution of consumer culture, as their position is established in a way that the product can develop, and their brand can remain; with the four key factors Aaker discusses Kodak using. This discussion explores that the strategies that have been explored within the exploration of how brands are forced into refreshing are extremely evident within the fashion industry.

Yet other industries must adopt a similar direction in order to not lose their consumer, such as John Lewis and Waitrose; even brands such as Naked smoothies employ new tactics such as an adaptation of the use of social media to portray their brand in a strong position.

Although, other points discovered within the investigation allow for an argument to be built towards proving that brands are being forced into refreshing by societies evolving conception of consumer culture. Rebrands, such as Burberry’s, clearly represent the 14

way that brands are forced into refreshing to gain a new position in the market, and in their case a new audience. Which arguably is down to their own mispositioning and inability to stick with their developing audience consistently, causing a massively abrupt change in brand direction. Not only did this cause initial confusion but also risked creating a long-lasting stigma against the way the brand cares for their consumers environment, with the destruction of a majority of its current stock; with no care of its original production methods. Showing that once a brand can feel forced into refreshing, they feel the pressure of doing so on a level of intensity that deems the possibility of the consumer they are rebranding for to reject the brand due to their lack of ethical considerations. The reasoning to this rebrand occurring, was mainly to move ahead to be able to become influential again to their ideal customer. As their consumer moved away from someone who represents the brand ideals, something which in turn changes the brand values; due to the fact the consumer who buys into the brand therefore represents it. Clear visual representation is more than brand level, ‘the very element of consumer society itself; no society has ever been so saturated with signs and images like this one’ (Featherstone, 2007) depicting exactly why it is important for a brand to retain the correct consumer to create the desired brand image. Therefore, showing the way in which societies view of brands move with the evolving consumer culture that goes with it, and thereby the brand must refresh in order to in-keep with their own ideal ways of presenting their business.

Once a brand believes that it needs to move to make way for a new type of consumer and it does not it can detrimental to a brand itself, both finically and damaging to their reputation. GAP’s rebrand took a lot of company resources, caused a public stir, and was rejected by a current audience; whilst also warding off new business due to the amount of negative media at the time. As discussed, they were forced to revert, making it evident their refresh was unsuccessful. This shows that once again brands are forced into refreshing through societies evolving view of consumer culture, as the brand feared becoming irrelevant and pre-empted an impulsive change that benefited no one. If they waited until there was a need by the consumer to develop, the changes may have been accepted.

Overarchingly it is evident to me that brands are being forced into refreshing to align with the evolution of consumer culture, if they do not, they fear becoming irrelevant, or rejecting their own vision for the brand. In the age that we are living in the experience of purchasing items is changing, as investigated through John Lewis’ 15

rebrand, as sales are becoming online based; therefore, the brand must work in an online presence. Brands must develop to show a visual representation in a stronger way online, as the consumer is not experiencing the immersive shopping in store experience, and consequently can only receive an idea of the brands core values through its visual online experience. If a brand isn’t aligned with this, they risk losing sales, and overall notoriety, ultimately beginning a road to the brand ceasing to trade an exist. Emphasizing the need for brands to be forced into refreshing through the evolving traits of consumer culture, in order to remain a brand at all in today’s society.

16

Images

Figure 10 Naked Smoothie Influencer Post

Figure 11 Burberry Logo Comparison

17

Figure 12 Burberry Monogram

Figure 13 Rebranded GAP Logo

Figure 14 Traditional & Current GAP Logo 18

Figure 15 Public Visual Response

Figure 16 Moschino x H&M - Gigi Hadid

Figure 17 John Lewis and Partners Rebrand

19

Figure 18 John Lewis Inspiration

20

Bibliography Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The free Press.

BBC News. (2018). Burberry burns luxury goods worth millions. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44885983 [Accessed 27 Nov. 2018].

Bergh, J. and Behrer, M. (2016). How cool brands stay hot. London: KoganPage, p.45.

Burns, D. (2012). THE ROLE OF BRANDS IN A CONSUMER CULTURE: CAN STRONG BRANDS SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?. p.36.

Butman, J. and Silverstein, M. (2014). Treasure hunt. New York: Portfolio, p.51.

Butman, J., Fiske, N. and Silverstein, M. (2014). Trading up. New York: Portfolio, p.5.

Cook, K. (2018). 10 Influencer Marketing Campaigns to Inspire and Get You Started With Your Own. [online] Blog.hubspot.com. Available at: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/examples-of-influencer-marketing-campaigns [Accessed 21 Nov. 2018].

Featherstone, M. (2007). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=czfeN2hV6xIC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=the+very +element+of+consumer+society+itself;+no+society+has+ever+been+so+saturated+with +signs+and+images+like+this+one&source=bl&ots=kYa7wte76Y&sig=2KhrtuVZUJvvHf P3HEP7FVVcotA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi22bigyJXfAhVgThUIHdrMB8EQ6AEwA HoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20very%20element%20of%20consumer%20society %20itself%3B%20no%20society%20has%20ever%20been%20so%20saturated%20wit h%20signs%20and%20images%20like%20this%20one&f=false [Accessed 2 Dec. 2018].

Halliday, J. (2010). Gap scraps logo redesign after protests on Facebook and Twitter. [online] the Guardian. Available at:

21

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/oct/12/gap-logo-redesign [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018].

Holt, D. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), pp.70-90.

Isaac, M. (2010). New Gap Logo Hated by Many, Company Turns to Crowdsourcing Tactics. [online] Forbes.com. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/velocity/2010/10/07/new-gap-logo-hated-by-manycompany-turns-to-crowdsourcing-tactics/#6528e8453a00 [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018].

Lury, C. (1996). Consumer culture. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.250, 255.

Olins, W. (2010). The brand handbook. London: Thames & Hudson, p.104.

Olins, W. (2011). On brand. London: Thames & Hudson, p.14.

Pentagram. (2018). The John Lewis Partnership — Story — Pentagram. [online] Available at: https://www.pentagram.com/work/the-john-lewis-partnership/story [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018].

Slade, C. (2016). Creating a Brand Identity. London: Laurence King Publishing, p.10.

Vizard, S. (2018). Are the John Lewis and Waitrose rebrands a cosmetic fix or a strategic move? - Marketing Week. [online] Marketing Week. Available at: https://www.marketingweek.com/2018/09/05/john-lewis-waitrose-rebrands-navigatechallenging-retail-sector/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2018].

Vizard, S. (2018). Are the John Lewis and Waitrose rebrands a cosmetic fix or a strategic move? - Marketing Week. [online] Marketing Week. Available at: https://www.marketingweek.com/2018/09/05/john-lewis-waitrose-rebrands-navigatechallenging-retail-sector/ [Accessed 9 Dec. 2018].

Weber, L. (2009). Marketing to the social web. Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley & Sons.

22