Featured cases
- ABM Industries 2012
- AkzoNobel 2008
- Alcatel-Lucent 2006
- Alliance Boots 2006
- Apple 2007
- Aramark 1994
- ArcelorMittal 2007
- Assurant 2004
- Bausch & Lomb 2004
- BDO International 2010
- Belgacom 2003
- Boise Cascade 2002
- BP 2000
- Broadview Security 2009
- Brocade 2007
- CA 2005
- Cardinal Health 2003
- CEC Bank 2008
- Chemtura 2005
- Cisco Systems 2006
- Cision 2007
- Computer Associates 2001
- Covidien 2007
- Credit Suisse 2006
- CSC 2008
- Daimler 2007
- Delta Air Lines 2007
- Devon Energy 2007
- DSM 2011
- Eastman Kodak 2006
- EDF 2005
- Experian 2007
- Federal Express 1994
- FedEx Corporation 2000
- FICO 2009
- Fiserv Inc. 2009
- Fortis 1998
- Fortis 2006
- Fortis 1991
- Genworth 2004
- Gillette 1993
- Grant Thornton 2008
- Harcourt General 1993
- Harlan Laboratories 2008
- Hyperion 2006
- Ingersoll Rand 2005
- Intel 2006
- Invista 2003
- Johnson Controls 2007
- Kemper 2011
- Lineage Logistics 2012
- LM Wind Power 2010
- Lucent Technologies 1996
- Marathon Oil Corporation 2011
- Marsh & McLennan Companies 2011
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2003
- McGladrey 2010
- Meredith Corporation 2009
- MFS Investment Management 2012
- Morgan Stanley 2006
- Nielsen 2007
- Nokia Siemens Networks 2007
- Novartis 1997
- NXP Semiconductors 2006
- Outward Bound USA 2005
- Polycom 2012
- Princeton University Press 2007
- Reliance ADAG 2006
- Rockwell Collins 2006
- Samsung 1993
- Sensata Technologies 2006
- Shipley Energy 2011
- Sistema Telecom 2006
- Smith & Nephew 2003
- Sprint (Sprint Nextel) 2005
- Starbucks 2011
- Tenneco 1995
- Texenergo 2011
- The Joint Commission 2007
- The Paley Center for Media 2007
- The Phoenix Companies 2006
- Thomson Reuters 2008
- Tyco Electronics 2007
- Umicore 2001
- Unilever 2004
- Unum Group 2007
- Vale 2007
- Vantiv 2011
- Velfina 2004
- Wolters Kluwer 2005
- Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 2002
- Xerox 2008
Case: Xerox 2008
2008 1994 1968 For forty-six years, Xerox has struggled with its name's overpowering association with "copier." Previous rebranding efforts failed to broaden the meaning of the name. Almost by default, Xerox then reverted to the proudly corporate posture of its classic presence, the 1961 Lippincott logo (as redesigned by Chermayeff & Geismar in 1968). The "copier" problem remained. According to brand officer Richard Wergan, "Our business had evolved; our brand, a $6 billion asset, had not. Our visual system, although well designed, was designed for print media; customers now access us via the Internet. We needed a brand we could protect and leverage in the digital environment, the key to the future of Xerox." Employee attitudes were as important as the public image, if not more so: says Wergan, "It is absolutely critical. The external image is delivered internally, by the brand experience delivered by employees every day. It does play a really important role in galvanizing and focusing employees on where we're going." This rebranding was not rushed. Interviews, planning, design and deliberation took a full two years, with CEO Anne Mulcahey "engaged and supportive." In the end, a new mark with a symbol was chosen "to disrupt the mental model," and in hopes of finding a more emotional connection with employees and customers. The symbol itself, a monogram disguised as a ball, was rounded in part to enhance its 'button' utility. Its x-crossed lines (called "the connectors") provide the basis for the wavy-lines graphic device that dominates a new visual system (which also features "one of the broadest color palettes of any Fortune 500 company"). In addition to the design changes, there is a reshuffling of communicated units, nomenclature, and the signature system (which remains largely monolithic, with strategic exceptions). But there is no new corporate tag line as yet: "The Document Company" is neither formally retired nor felt to be broad enough for the evolving Xerox. A worldwide employee event was staged to launch the new mark, 30 minutes before it was released to the press; it then anchored a sustained new advertising campaign. CREDITS Counsel and design: Interbrand
CASE INFO Submitted by: Tony Spaeth, 17/02/2008 |
MATRIX DATA
DRIVERS | TOOLS | ||
Strategic driver: 100% | |||
Broaden scope/scale/visibility Remove limiting category association | 30% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
Change internal culture Enhance pride & confidence | 20% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
Change internal culture Refresh & redirect competitive energy | 20% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Monolithic | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
Change expressed personality Renew/refresh public image | 30% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Monolithic | ||
x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||