This is a question we grapple with on every single brand refresh project. And we’ve done a lot of them. Consequently, we’ve become very good at working out the answer.

So if you’re thinking:

“We know we need some kind of brand refresh but we’re not sure how far to go.”

Then save this newsletter as a reference.

A brand refresh should never be about aesthetics.

The “Tropicana” tale is your warning story: back in 2009, they implemented a dramatic overhaul of their brand identity and lost $50 million in sales.

It’s now a famous case study in what not to do.

You might think the refresh is aesthetically cleaner, more modern and more appealing.

But outside the design world, packaging refreshes are not a beauty contest. When done well, they are a commercial tool for growth. And this was the complete opposite. Why?

Because instead of refining what was there and optimising for impact, they threw out everything that made the brand recognisable in a 3-second glance.

So suddenly, everyone who ‘buys the one with the orange’ couldn’t find their product anymore, and grabbed something else. $50m worth of something else.

So one of the first questions everyone asks is: how much do we need to change?

If you’re thinking about refreshing some element of your brand or packaging, you’ll probably benefit from this visual reference framework.

Let me explain.

Level 1: Optimise

Goal: improve performance without changing the identity.

What stays:

• logo / wordmark

• core colour cues

• pack shape

• most key brand assets

What changes:

• hierarchy

• claims structure

• typography usage

• visuals

• clarity / navigation

Test:
If you blur your eyes, it still looks like the same pack.

This is basically executional improvement. It’s probably the trickiest to pull off and one of the most impactful ways brands can spend their money. After all, your packaging is a 24/7 salesperson that doesn’t keep asking for money, so it’s working harder in your marketing mix than Google or Meta.

Optimisations make commercial impact. They are not about vanity or looking cool, but improving packaging so you can sell more.

Level 2: Evolve

Goal: improve performance by upgrading the identity system while preserving recognisable cues.

What stays:

• 1–2 core brand assets, usually:

  • primary colour

  • recognisable brand mark / name

  • a distinctive device or structural cue

What changes:

• layout system

• typography system

• architecture

• graphic system

• visual language of the brand

Test:
It’s clearly the same brand, but clearly a new expression of that brand.

This is identity improvement & optimisation. The idea is to take everything from level one, but also look more critically at the brands assets and how they could be improved to meet their goals. Usually that’s because the current identity is holding them back - from reaching new distribution points, new consumer demographics or new marketing channels.

Level 3: Overhaul

Goal: create a materially new identity.

What stays:

• maybe the name

• maybe one brand asset

• maybe nothing meaningful beyond category continuity

What changes:

• logo / wordmark

• palette

• architecture

• design language

• packaging shape and format

• core distinctive assets

Test:
Without the brand name, you may not connect old and new immediately.

This is identity reinvention. It’s the riskiest move in the mix. And it’s exactly what Tropicana did. So why does it work for some, but not others?

There is only one way to answer the question of “how far should we go?”.

And it’s with another question:

How far does your brand go currently?

And what I mean by that is how many people actually know your brand? If you have no awareness, you’ll have no equity in your assets and the world is your oyster.

But if you’ve been operating for a while, have reasonable distribution and a decent amount of sales, the answer to that question is a lot less simple.

In all the examples in this newsletter, we thoroughly tested the health of each brand and their assets before deciding on how far to go.

At Mind Control, we use a similar model to the Ehrenberg Bass Institute for Distinctive Brand Asset testing.

This allows us to quantify how much equity is in your colour, your mascot, your taglines, instead of just guessing.

And as a simple rule: the more equity you have, the less you want to mess with or change that asset.

The best question is not how, but why?

All of this is downstream from the first question you should answer: why do you want to refresh your brand? What problem are you trying to solve? Is the problem you think is the problem, actually the problem?

If you are considering a brand refresh, we can help you answer both the why and the how. Sometimes it’s helpful to have an objective third party look at the problem first. Particularly if you are looking for more solid evidence to support the decision, either way.

Reach out to us here if this resonates.