Lifting, rebranding, repositioning, or a new launch? Industry chaos in nomenclature

Like us, you probably sometimes struggle with unclear naming of brand-related processes. In everyday marketing parlance, we often lump everything together. We call a facelift a rebranding. Rebranding a facelift. Refreshing a repositioning.

I was reinforced in this belief by the recent KFC facelift, which saw industry media and marketers alike hyping the idea of ​​a rebranding. I think as an industry, we tend to call most changes, even the smallest, rebranding—perhaps because it sounds more serious.

Below, we’ll try to clarify the terminology a bit, hoping it will help you in your daily work.

Definition: Repositioning is a shift in what a brand is associated with relative to competitors, categories, and audience needs.

It typically involves branding, as it’s difficult to discuss something new strategically without emphasizing it visually. A visual cue is often a signal that a change has occurred. Of course, in theory, one can imagine a situation where we reposition but don’t change anything in the branding, but we consider this ineffective.

Repositioning involves changing the perception of a brand in the mind of the recipient. A brand can shift from “cheap” to “smart,” from “traditional” to “expert,” from “local” to “aspirational,” from “technological” to “human.” The focus of the promise shifts.

In practice, repositioning often requires adjustments to many variables: language, offerings, segmentation, pricing, channels, customer experience, and communication.

Let’s use InPost as an example. The brand began as a postal alternative and parcel operator in the perception of many consumers. Over time, with the development of parcel lockers, mobile apps, and the expansion of e-commerce, its importance shifted toward a technological infrastructure of convenience.

The most important signal wasn’t the logo itself, but the experience: “I pick up when I want.” This repositioning through the product and the ritual of use. This change in approach was accompanied by a revamp of the visualization system, which remains an integral part of parcel lockers to this day.

After a strategic process and decisions about long-term impact, one can “select” the type of branding process tailored to the strategic objectives. Each process differs in which signals are changed and how deeply they are incorporated into the brand’s meaning.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

After the strategic process and decisions about long-term impact, you can “select” the type of branding process that best suits your strategic objectives. Each process differs in which signals you change and how deeply you influence the brand’s meaning.

Definition: A facelift is the refreshing of existing brand signals without changing its essence, promise, or name.

The brand remains the same, but begins to look, speak, or function in a slightly different way, adapting to current market conditions and trends.

A facelift typically includes: improving the logo, correcting typography, streamlining colors, modernizing layouts, updating key visuals, and revamping packaging, websites, sales materials, or digital touchpoints. However, it should not alter the foundation, i.e., the brand’s core identity.

There are several forms of facelift, depending on the degree of interference with brand signals: a shallow facelift and a deep facelift.

A good Polish example of a shallow facelift is Allegro and its 2009 logo restyling. The brand itself didn’t suddenly become something else. It didn’t change its category, business model, or core associations. What changed was the visual signal—the logo—and the direction of its corporate identity.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Important: For example, a label refresh without major changes shouldn’t be called a branding process.

Another example of a shallow facelift is the Żubr brand. Over the years, the changes have been purely cosmetic: sometimes the bison looks left, sometimes right; sometimes the brand sash is larger, sometimes smaller. It’s still the same brand, and the changes are purely refreshing. Key brand signals remain unchanged: the legibility of the name and brand logo, key label elements, the brand colors, the brand icon (the bison image), and the bottle shape. I think it’s a mistake to even call minor technical label changes a branding process.

Source: own study based on Chat GPT

An example of a profound facelift is the mBank branding process from 2013. BRE Bank and MultiBank were merged under a single mBank brand. This wasn’t just a name change; it was a streamlining of the brand architecture toward a more digital, simpler, and recognizable brand.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Interestingly, continuity was also communicated: the offering, account numbers, and customer transaction systems remained unchanged. The name itself also remained the most important brand signal.

Another example is Żabka, which underwent a major facelift in 2017. This was dictated by significant strategic changes regarding the store’s role, its expansion to new customer groups, and changes to its product range. In addition to a new logo, the facelift included changes to its visual identity and communication. As with mBank, the primary brand signal, namely the name, remained unchanged.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

A deep facelift, due to the revolutionary scale of the branding changes, is often confused with a rebrand. We assume that since so much has changed, and the brand, in terms of its visual system, bears little resemblance to its predecessor, a rebrand must be necessary.

However, the key remains the brand’s primary signal, the name. Whether it changes alongside other deep changes determines whether we’re dealing with a deep facelift or a rebrand.

Definition: Rebranding is a strategic shift in brand identity, encompassing not only visual signals but also meaning, architecture, language, experience, and often the way the offer is organized. A key element is a change of name—the strongest brand signal.

Rebranding is, in a sense, a break from the old world and the beginning of something completely new on the old foundations: starting with the name, continuing through other brand signals, and finally strategic changes.

A good example is the creation of the Orlen brand, built on the foundations of the CPN brand, but in a completely new version. The change involved more than just the name and logo. It encompassed a whole set of signals: from visual identification, through station standards, communication language, and brand architecture.

This is what distinguishes rebranding from a facelift: we don’t reshape the face of the old brand, but create a new identity based on the old assets.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Definition: A launch is the introduction of a new brand, product, service, or format to the market from scratch. We don’t refresh existing associations, but create them from scratch, or nearly so.

Play in 2007 is one of the most interesting Polish examples of a launch. In a market dominated by incumbent operators, a brand emerged with a different energy, language, and promise. It wasn’t a facelift for a telecom or a rebranding of an old operator. It was the entry of a new player who had to quickly build recognition, differentiation, and a reason to be chosen.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Another example of a launch is the Žatecký beer brand, which was the Carlsberg Okocim Group’s response to competitors’ attempts to occupy the territory of “Czechness” in their positioning. While it gave the impression of a traditional Czech beer, it was created from scratch.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Definition: Retro-branding is the conscious use of old brand codes—logo, name, style, symbols—to evoke emotions of nostalgia, trust, or continuity. It doesn’t always mean a return of an old brand in the full business sense.

The most frequently cited example of a successful brand comeback from the 1990s is Frugo. It’s a case where nostalgia met real consumer energy.

Returning to the market, the brand retained its strongest codes: the glass bottle, the distinctive cap, the youthful energy, and the slightly absurd tone of its communication. At the same time, it didn’t try to pretend the market hadn’t changed. It expanded its portfolio, tested variants, and responded to consumer behavior.

Source: own work based on ChatGPT

Repositioning is a strategic change that shifts the brand’s place in the customer’s mind. Changes to the visual system can be a consequence.

If we primarily change the appearance, while the name and meaning remain, we’re dealing with a facelift. Depending on the degree of interference with brand signals, we can distinguish between shallow and deep facelifts.

If we change the name, appearance, identity, architecture, language, and experience, we’re dealing with rebranding.

If we introduce a new brand or a new behavioral category, we’re talking about a launch.

If we revive a former brand and old codes to trigger memories, we’re talking about reactivation and retro-branding.

However, the most important thing isn’t the word itself. The most important question is: what really needs to change in the brand’s signals to change its perception?

This is why good branding doesn’t start with the question: “Are we doing a facelift or a rebrand?” It begins with a diagnosis: which brand signals are no longer working, which are outdated, which are sending the wrong message, and which possess inherent value that must not be destroyed.

The rest is a consequence.