The Shack. The Hut. SyFy. There seems to be a new craze among marketing and advertising types, that has lead to complete re-branding efforts, and entirely new design initiatives. Over the last couple of weeks, three well known entities (Radio Shack, Pizza Hut, and the Sci Fi Channel) have undergone fairly drastic re-branding, all in the name of brevity and a certain youth oriented je ne sais quoi. The goal is to appear more “hip”, and to strike a more direct impact into the glazed over consumer psyche that has grown immune to decade old campaigns. I consider the current Charles Schwab campaign “Talk to Chuck”, to be a prototype for this type of branding and design (and to a lesser degree, the KFC and BK switches of years past).
Is this effective? Does it accomplish its goal?
When one considers that the original names were not overly long or hard to remember, doubt starts to cloud the discussion.
Of the three, I would consider Radio Shack to be the most in need of a re-branding enterprise. The radio is a fairly archaic invention by today standards, and the sheer mention of the word in the brand name might ward off tech savvy consumers who are more interested in click face blackberries than they are transistors and resistors.
When one considers that Radio Shack sells cell phones, digital cameras and other modern devices, one can understand wanting to stress that. They need to modernize, and they need to distance themselves from what Radio Shack used to be. Ok. We have established that. However, calling themselves The Shack is simply not the answer. It is too pedestrian, and has a fairly undesirable mental image associated with the word. Overall, it is not effective, and I am predicting a switch in the near future. Their heart is in the right place, but their brain is not.
So how does the Hut stack up? Poorly, that is how. I feel this move was done purely to make a move. A lot of other companies have undergone sweeping brand changes (Pepsi, Holiday inn, Healthy Choice), and I feel that the Pizza Hut marketing people are trying to justify their own salaries. Change for the sake of it is a poor idea. Pizza Hut is a short, memorable (if not exciting) Â name that informs the consumer that they do indeed sell pizza. It is not glamorous, but it serves its function. When considering naming and branding, effectiveness always trumps a new logo or slogan.
SyFy.Really? The previous name was already abbreviated! Sci-Fi was too long? Was it lost in the shuffle of other science fiction channels? This is a niche network which a specific demographic, one that I am sure was fine with the previous name. This once again takes the focus away from the service provided (science fiction programming), all in the name of some silly, spelling based posturing.
Overall, I feel this technique is employed by companies that can not promise any degree of dynamism in the marketplace. They can not improve their actual product, nor can they improve their customer service. So instead of focusing on the real consumer game changers, they dither around with focus groups and marketing nitwits and birth a silly bumper sticker worthy company makeover. This is not to say that re-branding is a futile and unnecessary enterprise. It can actually be very effective, and can energize a company and their consumer base (ie Pepsi, Holiday Inn, Healthy Choice etc). However, a name change is not the way to go, as this infers you are running away from your previous brand identity, which surely soured due to poor services.
So if you are seeking a new direction, strengthen you identity, and forge a bright  new look in your marketing and advertising materials. Focus on better design, and always improve your product.
Posted by: Matt Paulson
