14 Jan Brand Restyling: When Levi’s stopped being called Levi’s
Defining branding – the management of the brand – of a company such as its logo or corporate image is a bit short. In reality, it would be the totality of elements and processes by which we get to build a brand, to plan, shape and ultimately make it recognizable and maintain that constant of prestige and vision offered by the company or the product.
Every company has in essence a brand, either provoked through a strategy and a plan of action on it, or by own inertia of existence and evolution within the market. The important thing in this sense, rather than having it, is in what way you get to the creation of that brand and in addition, how can you help the implementation of a product or the annual growth of the company that is behind it.
Create and consolidate a brand, therefore, plan and carry out a functional and effective branding for it, is an arduous task that must be undertaken after studying various environments, both physical and spiritual to capture the values and essence of the company to transfer them to a satisfactory user experience that culminates with a recognition of the brand as a sign of trust and reliability.
We talked a few months ago about what is branding, but what happens when you have to change a brand?Is the rebranding negative? According to the of many companies that have been forced to carry it out, the answer would be NO.The requirement to maintain the prestige of a brand, and therefore to strengthen the branding that gives it shape, often requires facing the transformation of a brand in order to consolidate its status or to improve and update its appearance to requirements of the market or in the face of the need to achieve a specific campaign.
Many are the examples that have caused a brand restyling. Always seeking to maintain on the one hand the character and philosophy that already transmitted the existing image, but reinforcing the communication and maintaining the inherent values of the brand. Carrying it out is not just a matter of graphic design, of changing the elements that make up the brand in its visual aspect and therefore in the application of all corporate material. The study of an objective and a way forward is essential for the transformation to be a success. There are many cases throughout history …
Brand Restyling: the day that Levi’s disappeared from the Levi’s logo
But in the case of Levi’s, which is the example we wanted to highlight, we find ourselves with a risky gamble, so much so that it has not been completely consummated, but that marked a turning point towards what could be the evolution of its brand In the near future. Marking a path in which the modernization of its lines, go more in line with a market that does not stop evolving, above all, to digitize.
Levi’s Strauss is a company created in 1853 and as everyone knows, manufacturer of the most used pants in the world (in the real and in the cinema fiction) and that has made its product – the “jeans” – a flagship and of its brand (the bat-shaped bow and the letters printed in white) a distinguishable icon throughout the world.
They are many years composing a set of values and qualities that around their logo (evolved from that image of two draft horses trying to rip some pants) but sometimes, despite the absolute implantation of a brand, it is necessary to modify or alter the work already done.
In 2012, the Californian company commissioned the agency Turner Duckworth, specialists in image transformations, to respond to the request to modernize in a concise and simple way, the visual aesthetics of its brand, redesigning its logo and causing a general rebranding. of the company.
The result seems spectacular, although they have not managed to convince the CEO of Levi’s, because despite its visual effectiveness and its perfect application in labeling and packaging, the company has not fully implemented the change to its brand. After some years, the project has been carried out in a tenuous way in some territories or simply in specific locations without completely modifying its public image, although some elements of its internal corporate stationery.
However, it marks a style by which the company could bet in the future, or simply without needing the total reconversion of its image at this moment (perhaps due to confidence in its current stability) as a testing ground for what will be its new image in a short-medium term.
Meanwhile, we are left with this great work of restyling and transformation of the branding that it proposes, until we get used to seeing it in all the resources of the brand. What do you think?