Pick a brand, any brand. There are certain cues for food and drink brands that, without the name attached, you know who it is. A certain shade of regal purple wrapper; a lime wedge stuffed into the neck of a cold beer bottle; or the orange dust left on your fingertips. The combination of brand name and distinctive assets form the identity of your brand. Should brand managers and CMOs change any of that? My first reflex: no. Hell, no.

Longevity is a crucial ingredient of a brand’s success. Contrary to popular belief in marketing departments, brands are tiny things in people’s lives. Loyalty, if any, is fragile and is easily disrupted, especially in the often commoditised and highly competitive category of consumer packaged goods (CPG).

Being the creatures of habit they are, consumers may find any new design jarring, confusing or disorientating. Brands should not give consumers a reason to turn to an alternative. As a brand, you’ve done a very good job if you’re remembered even at all between careers, friends, kids and the daily oat milk latte.

Only for the right reasons

You better have a damn good reason to change things up. Like when society evolves, that’s when a substantial make-over can be called for. Think Mars rebranding ‘Uncle Ben’s’ to ‘Ben’s Original’, and PepsiCo removing the image from Aunt Jemima, after many consumers claimed the brand names or assets perpetuated racist stereotypes.

If you rebrand to stay up to date with the times, tread carefully. Finding the sweet spot, the delicate balance between familiar and new is what could be referred to as the ‘Goldilocks Effect’. Not too bold but not too shy. In tech, it is referred to as MAYA - Most Advanced Yet Acceptable. If a technology is too advanced, people will reject it. It’s what happened with Google Glass.

The branding equivalent was Tropicana’s packaging redesign. A more recent case was Lyle’s Golden Syrup whose rebrand caused such uproar that it made national news. Some people were upset, others confused, most….didn’t care. Even though I’m not a fan of rebrands, I feel Lyle’s got it right. Just right. Let me explain.

Start with the why

Arguably, a marketer’s greatest challenge, one that becomes a well-honed skill, is being resistant to trends. Use them in your communications to stay relevant, but don’t shake up your entire brand identity because of them. Trends are the wrong reason to rebrand.

The declining relevance of religion in society is hardly a trend. It’s a societal evolution that’s been taking place for decades. Lyle’s decision to move away from religious tropes fits within that evolution. You’d need a historian to understand the biblical context of the dead lion and quotation on the pack: it has lost all meaning and relevance. And by certain measures, the religious connotation is possibly harmful to the brand. A good why, I’d say.

How did they rebrand?

Well, they didn’t. A successful rebrand is one that doesn’t scare consumers away. At that point, it’s called a brand refresh. A rejuvenation. A revitalisation. In these moments, a brand’s identity evolves in such a way that consumers hardly notice.

Lyle’s kept most of what made it identifiable as Lyle’s: the name, the typography, the arch, the gold and green colour scheme, the use of ornaments, the pack. And yes, Lyle’s ‘lion with the bees image was famous. But, they didn’t remove it. They updated the lion to bring it more in line with current aesthetics. They dialled out the religious connotation and the element of death, traditionally not known for its deliciousness, and also kept the bees.

Where Tropicana got the Home Improvement team to knock down the building and place a pink inflatable igloo in its place, Lyle’s simply refreshed the building by putting new wallpaper up in the living room.

Brand over bland

You may have seen what happened in the fashion space. Logos have been adjusted to be more readable on mobile devices and in the process, they’ve all become the same.

Don’t drown your brand in the sea of sameness. Category traditions have a loud voice. The chocolate category has some of the worst culprits, all swirling imagery and slow motion shots. Lyle’s positioning hasn’t changed, so when done right, the brand occupies the same mental space it occupied before. It still looks authentic and it still celebrates the traditional values its founder rooted the brand in. It did not change because a new touch point, mobile phones, appeared on the scene. So, don’t bland it up. Leave that to your competitors.

An authentic audience

Too often of late, we’re seeing brands desperately trying to appeal to everyone but in turn, as the saying goes, appealing to no one. They’re blinded by the shiny and new. Take a moment to ask yourself if that audience is who you really want, who your brand really needs. Your brand might not be for Gen Z. That’s OK.

Lyle’s has resisted the urge to speak to a younger or wider audience. They could have easily introduced louder colours, they could have made the lion and bee playful and child-like, or used less regressive typography.

But for the truly diehard audiences that crave the authentic pack, the original tin is still on the shelf, in its original design. It becomes a relic. An homage. Duality in a brand can become problematic over time, but older audiences will surely enjoy their 454 (!) grams of heritage until they die out.

Finding your sweet spot

Because here’s the thing. Lyle’s got some uproar, some protest, because hey, people are not hard wired to embrace change. They most likely don’t realise how attached they are to The Old, or why that is.

We are creatures of habit and the reflex is to shout in anger if anything familiar changes. But for the right reasons, with modesty, and uniqueness in their crosshairs, I find the Lyle’s rebrand a story of success. Because it’s not a rebrand. It’s a brand refresh.