Reasons for rebranding: how the drivers changed over 35 years

The main reason for rebranding in the 1990s: privatisation

The first major rebranding wave I experienced up close had a clear political origin: privatisation and liberalisation. In the Netherlands and beyond, governments decided that they would no longer be involved in supplying energy, managing land and property registers or operating rail infrastructure. Those tasks went to independent or privatised entities: Kadaster, ProRail, KPN and PTT Post. In Belgium, De Lijn (regional public transport) emerged. Former government organisations suddenly needed a face of their own, because a monopolist does not need a brand. A market player does.

One of the first projects I worked on was the rebranding of GAK, the implementing body behind the WW, WAO and Ziektewet benefits. Social security had to become more efficient, more customer focused and more business like. That required not only a different way of working, but also a new face: a radical new brand style, developed by Studio Dumbar. The identity, developed and implemented at great expense, barely had time to settle. In 2002, GAK merged with LISV and other implementing bodies to form UWV, and another rebranding followed.

At the same time, a remarkable consolidation wave took place in the utilities sector. In North Holland, for example, five regional energy companies, including Energiebedrijf Amsterdam, grew towards each other to form Energie NoordWest. Three years later, that company was absorbed by Nuon, and Nuon eventually became Vattenfall. Every step was a rebranding, and every rebranding was a direct reflection of the scale leap that preceded it. I worked on the costly rebrandings of Energie NoordWest and Nuon and, as with GAK, saw how quickly an organisation had to let go of its previous identity once it became part of something bigger.

The brand itself did not change first. Organisational reality did, and the brand followed.

The Toronto Hydro project was the first major assignment for VIM Group far outside the Netherlands, and proof that these trends were not limited to the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1998, six municipal electricity companies in Toronto were merged into a single entity, a scale leap that coincided with the liberalisation of the Ontario energy market. Six local utilities, each with its own face, had to be forged into one recognisable city company, ready for a competitive market.

The driver of those years was simple and powerful: structural change from outside. The brand itself did not change first. Organisational reality did, and the brand followed.

Rebranding in the 2000s: globalisation, mergers and acquisitions

The next phase was dominated by globalisation. National champions became part of international groups, and cross border mergers and acquisitions set the pace. Hoogovens disappeared as a name and became Corus, and later Tata Steel. Here cultures, identities and customer promises collided: a Dutch brand with a strong local reputation suddenly had to be embedded in a British and later Indian parent company.

Two projects from that period have stayed with me as examples of what was happening in that decade. Postbank, for years a familiar Dutch name for millions of savers, became ING. It was the visible expression of a strategic choice: one international brand, not a patchwork of local sub brands. This choice was consistently carried through when ING said goodbye to its international sub brands, such as DiBa in Germany. Brand uniformity as a strategic weapon.

Another telling example is Deutsche Post, which at the end of the 1990s developed from a national postal organisation into an international logistics group. In 1999, Deutsche Post acquired the Dutch company Van Gend & Loos. The historic brand name survived for a few more years but disappeared in 2003, when the activities of Van Gend & Loos, Danzas, Deutsche Post Euro Express and DHL International were integrated under the DHL brand. The rebranding was the visible final step of a much larger movement: privatisation, international expansion and the creation of one global logistics brand. For VIM Group, this led not only to a large brand implementation project but also to a long term maintenance and damage management contract.

The central question was no longer: what do we call ourselves? It was: who are we in relation to whom?

Within the Netherlands, the project known as "Eén logo" (One logo) was just as impressive: the rebranding of all Dutch ministries and executive agencies to a single national government identity. Dozens of organisations, one visual system. It was a complex brand implementation assignment that taught me how comprehensive, and how political, a rebranding on that scale can be.

The question that was central in this decade was no longer: what do we call ourselves? The question became: who are we in relation to whom? Brand architecture, the art of organising brand portfolios, became a mature discipline. For VIM Group, this marked the start of an explosion of complex, multi year brand implementation trajectories in which consistency across dozens of countries and languages was the central challenge.

Rebranding in the 2010s: from reaction to strategic transformation

If there is one shift that distinguishes the 2010s from the decades before, it is this: rebranding was increasingly used deliberately as a strategic instrument. Organisations used their brand to claim a new ambition, establish a new identity or bring two cultures together under one name. The brand became a statement of intent, not a reaction to a fait accompli. This is strategic intent, although that does not rule out a merger as the trigger.

The difference with the 2000s lies not in the trigger but in the ambition. Where merger rebrandings used to revolve around integration and uniformity, in the 2010s they increasingly revolved around claiming a new identity or mission.

The brand as a statement of intent, not a reaction to a fait accompli.

For VIM Group, this decade also meant a clear internationalisation of our work. More and more assignments came from outside the Netherlands, and increasingly involved organisations operating across national borders and cultures.

Merck, the company founded in 1668 in Darmstadt (not to be confused with the American MSD, Merck Sharp & Dohme), did something remarkable in 2015: it rebranded without a merger, without a crisis and without external pressure. The reason was purely strategic. Merck had transformed from a classic pharmaceutical and chemicals company into a global technology group. It also wanted to distinguish itself more visibly from competitor MSD.

The new corporate identity, with an iconic multicoloured logo mark, was radical and self assured. Its implementation caused my colleagues and me many headaches, but the result was worth it. Ten years later, Merck has almost doubled its net revenue. A rebranding as a starting point, not a finishing touch.

The rebranding of Renewi, which emerged from the merger of Van Gansewinkel and Shanks Group, also stays clearly in my memory and illustrates the strategic merger. Two companies were not combined under pressure. Instead, they deliberately formulated a new shared mission around the theme of waste to product. The name Renewi immediately communicated what the company stood for: not processing waste, but renewing it.

The most special project for me from that period was Luminor. That was not only because it brought me every week to countries and beautiful cities that I would probably never otherwise have visited. The Scandinavian banks DNB and Nordea wanted to exit their activities in the Baltic States, a region they considered a shrinking market.

An independent sale was not attractive due to fierce competition, low margins and high compliance requirements. They therefore first combined their activities in a joint venture: Luminor. This was not an existing brand that was renewed, but a completely new brand that had to be built from scratch across three countries, three languages and three cultures at the same time.

That the market was not shrinking at all is proven by Luminor itself. Since 2017, Luminor has changed from an operationally expensive merger bank with low margins into a highly profitable organisation. Just two years after this operation, investor Blackstone bought 80% of the shares. It has now become the ideal takeover target for Hungary's OTP Bank.

A second, more fundamental driver also played a role in this decade: digital transformation.

At the end of the decade, COVID19 arrived as an unexpected accelerator. What should have been a gradual transformation for many organisations took place within a few months. For many brands, the question then arose whether their identity still matched who they had become. For me, it marked the end of a decade of extensive travel. Meetings via MS Teams became the norm.

Are you considering a rebrand? I'd be happy to think along with you. Feel free to contact me directly at ivar.hannessen@vim-group.com or +31 6 21 24 67 03.