When to Rebrand: Chris Fulmer on the DoneMaker Podcast

Chris Fulmer, the Managing Directors at The Brand Auditors, was recently a guest on Zivko Dodovski’s DoneMaker Podcast.

In this insightful episode, Chris shared his expertise on key strategies for conducting effective brand audits, digital marketing audits, and knowing when it’s time to rebrand.

If you’re a business leader looking to refine your marketing approach or explore whether rebranding is the right move, this episode is a must-listen.

---

What you’ll learn

In this episode, Chris and Zivko dive into:

Brand audit vs. digital marketing audit

• The difference between a brand audit and a digital marketing audit and how to determine which one your business needs.

• Proven tips for uncovering hidden opportunities through audits.

When to rebrand

• When it’s time to rebrand your business and when a refresh will be enough.

• The subtle difference between polishing your brand and fully rebranding—and why it matters.

AI in marketing

• Practical ways to leverage AI for real results in your marketing strategy.

• Common pitfalls to avoid when implementing AI tools, so you don’t waste time or resources.

---

Why you should tune in

Chris brings years of experience in helping businesses optimize their brands and marketing efforts, and Zivko’s DoneMaker Podcast is the perfect platform for diving deep into actionable insights. From understanding the nuances of audits to making informed decisions about rebranding, this episode equips you with tools to take your brand to the next level.

Listen to the podcast

Don’t miss this engaging conversation!

LISTEN HERE: Tune in to the full episode on the DoneMaker Podcast.

About DoneMaker

DoneMaker is an outreach agency that helps entrepreneurs, agency owners and sales teams scale and grow through LinkedIn Organic Outreach.

The process is done manually; there is no scraping data, no automation, and no BS.

We find your ICPs, write the messaging, move leads to becoming prospects, and book discovery calls on your calendar. It is a turnkey and completely done-for-you solution.

Learn more about DoneMaker.

---

Podcast transcript: When to Rebrand: Chris Fulmer on the DoneMaker Podcast

NOTE: This content has been edited to enhance readability.

---

Zivko: All right, I usually start these things with a quote. And today I have,

“Design is the silent ambassador of your brand,” by Paul Rand.

I think Chris is the right person to speak more about that and shed some light on a different perspective on branding.

Chris has over 15 years of experience in brand development and marketing. He’s designed strategies across various industries such as technology, B2B services, and healthcare. His expertise includes brand positioning, competitive analysis, content marketing, and web development.

Chris, how are you today?

Chris: I’m doing great, Zivko. I appreciate you having me on.

Zivko: Fantastic. Now Chris, most people, when they hear what you do, say, “Oh, he’s a branding guy.” But what you do is different because you’re specialized in brand audits. What does that look like?

Chris: A brand audit really starts with the core of the brand, which includes identity. When people think of branding, they usually think of the logo, the color scheme, the graphics, and so on.

But a brand audit also looks at your market position, your target audience, your pricing, and the overall impression you want to make—not just visually, but also through your communication. What does your messaging sound like? All of those things are part of the brand.

Zivko: So it sounds like what you’re saying is that you look at things like market positioning, the target audience, pricing, and communication—both internal and external?

Chris: Correct, because everything needs to align with your audience. You have to think about who you want to reach—your ideal customer or client—and what you need to do to connect with them. It encompasses how you look, how you sound. You’ve got to walk the walk and talk the talk.

It’s really the same as if you’re going in for a job interview. What experience do you need? What do you need to communicate? You’re going to think about how you dress, how you carry yourself. All of that translates to an organization—whether it’s a nonprofit, a large company, or even a small business.

You have to think about who you want to attract. That’s really what it’s all about.

Zivko: So your approach sounds very human. You’re seeing the brand as a person—someone who needs to speak to the right audience. And then you align everything so that this “person” resonates with the audience you want to reach?

Chris: Correct.

Zivko: Okay. When you’re looking at it that way—this brand as a person who needs to walk the walk and talk the talk—is there a “first thing” you always look at? A first question you ask that sets the tone for everything else?

Chris: There is. “What do you want to be? Who do you want to reach? Who are you trying to help? And what is the core value you’re offering those people?”

It all starts there. There’s a lot we could dive into, but to keep it simple, it’s becoming harder and harder to differentiate. It’s becoming harder to be unique—and on top of that, how do you get your ideal customer to recognize that you’re different or better, especially when they’re looking at hundreds of competitors?

Our audiences are saturated with advertising and brands, and everything starts to blend together. So we go back to the beginning. We start with the foundation. Even if a client believes they’re further along than they really are—or sometimes they’re further along than they think—we still like to review everything from the ground up. That’s where we begin: with the foundation.

Let’s take a look at what you’re trying to accomplish with your organization, and how you’re doing that right now.

Zivko: Okay. Once you’ve asked that initial question—and some people are further along while others are early in the journey—what does the worst-case scenario look like? And on the other end, what does it look like when a company is in a great position and ready to optimize and take it to the next level?

Chris: The worst cases we’ve seen usually come from businesses that have been piecing everything together like patchwork. This often happens when companies deal with immediate problems by finding quick fixes, without considering the bigger picture. That’s understandable—whether you’re a small business or a large company, you’re dealing with daily issues. It’s not crisis management; it’s problem management.

You’re thinking, “We need this—let’s spend some resources and fix it.” But over time, even within a year or two, everything becomes disjointed.

I had an example just this week: a client told me, “This is what we do,” but when I checked their social platforms, they didn’t mention that at all. Their website said something completely different. That’s the worst case.

The best-case scenario is when a company has started using data, analytics, and customer feedback to guide its strategy. They’re starting to think more customer-centrically: “The customers want this—let’s give it to them,” instead of, “Here’s what we think is best.”

In those cases, there may be small gaps in the customer journey. Those are trickier because they require more effort to uncover, but they’re still there.

Zivko: So the major difference is short-term thinking versus long-term thinking. The companies in a weaker position are making patchwork fixes without a unified strategy, while the stronger ones are using data and feedback to create a customer-centric approach.

Do you feel that most companies actually spend time collecting and analyzing that data—or is it more of an afterthought?

Chris: I think most companies want to, and some try, but they don’t always know how. The data they collect is often incomplete, or it doesn’t give them what they actually need to move forward.

For example, we worked with a regional construction company that operated in five or six states. They had a lot of customer survey data, but the questions were inconsistent. They kept changing the questions, so when we reviewed it, only about 100 out of 5,000 surveys were usable. The rest were either incomplete or inconsistent.

The biggest challenge with data collection is doing the front-end work—figuring out what questions to ask, and what information you need in order to improve. A lot of companies collect feedback, but they don’t have a clear plan for what that feedback should be telling them. That’s something we help with.

Zivko: So you’re trying to find the information that actually helps you improve, instead of just collecting whatever’s easy to gather?

Chris: Exactly. A lot of companies focus on, “Is the customer happy?” or “Would they refer us?”—and that’s good—but we also want to know more.

One of the questions we like to ask is, “What made you almost choose a competitor?” In other words, what were they doing that tempted you?

That’s where you find gaps—things like, “I didn’t get a callback,” or “They responded faster than you,” or “You were cheaper, so I went with you.”

These kinds of answers help you figure out where to improve.

Zivko: I feel like most business owners wouldn’t think to ask that. It probably feels a little uncomfortable or too negative—like you’re pushing the customer to think about the competition. But the answer might be exactly what you need to hear.

Are there one or two other questions that business owners should start asking?

Chris: I get that it feels uncomfortable, but it really depends on how you ask. The framing matters, and so does the relationship you have with the customer. If it’s someone who’s been with you for a long time, you can be more direct than with someone who’s brand new.

But honestly, it depends on the nature of the business. It’s important to ask questions specific to what you do.

For instance, we like to ask, “If you didn’t have this product or service, how would you solve the problem instead?” Or, “What other alternatives did you consider?”

Those kinds of questions reveal competitors you might not know about—and not just direct competitors. It could be something else entirely.

Zivko: That’s a great example—especially the one about alternatives. It’s not something people naturally think to ask when doing a brand audit. We usually just think of direct competitors.

When you’re doing a brand audit, do you pull in that comparison directly? Or do you treat it more like a general landscape overview?

Chris: We do a little of both. First, we ask the client to give us a few competitors—usually the ones they’re aware of or encounter often. Then we do our own research and identify others they might not know about.

For example, if you’re a brick-and-mortar business, you probably know your local competitors—but your online competitors could be completely different.

Sometimes the companies our clients think are their top competitors actually aren’t doing that well. Meanwhile, there might be someone else who’s more effective—what we call a “dangerous competitor.”

That adds a little urgency. And of course, we also look at the industry as a whole—whether you’re competing locally or globally. We want to understand where you stand, what percentile you’re in, and where you want to go.

Zivko: Okay, now when you’re approaching the list of competitors that a client gives you—sometimes those aren’t really the right ones. You mentioned there are also “dangerous competitors” they may not even know about. Do you ever have conversations where someone lists competitors, but after your analysis you’re thinking, “That’s wishful thinking”? Like, they’re not even in the same stratosphere—it’s more aspirational than competitive. Do you have to shift that thinking and say, “This isn’t a competitor; it’s where you want to go”?

Chris: Yeah, we run into that a lot. But we actually encourage that. We don’t always, but we like to include what we call a “five-star” or “aspirational” competitor. Like, who’s the best in your industry? Who’s really the ace? Let’s benchmark against them. That gives you something to shoot for and helps shape your direction.

Zivko: Makes sense. How big of a role does user sentiment play when you’re doing a brand audit?

Chris: That’s a good question. User sentiment is a different kind of measurement—especially when you’re talking about larger groups.

If you’re trying to get an assessment from, say, 50 to 100 customers, you can get some really good feedback. But when you’re trying to scale that to much larger groups for a more accurate reading, it becomes tougher.

So in many cases, we create a process for the client to start collecting sentiment data consistently. You’ve probably seen this—websites where you take an action, and a little pop-up asks you to rate something from one to five stars. Even that kind of microfeedback can help. But honestly, reviews are the best form of sentiment data you can get.

Of course, you have to filter the outliers. For example, someone might leave a one-star review because a product arrived damaged—and that was really the fault of UPS, not the company. At the same time, a five-star review that just says, “Great!” doesn’t give you much insight either.

So we prefer when clients are actively and consistently collecting reviews. Another approach we use is conducting qualitative studies—interviews with a select group of customers. From that, we can usually get a really clear picture of how the brand is perceived.

So to answer your question directly: it’s not easy, but it can be done. And the best method depends on what data the company already has and what stage they’re at.

Zivko: Right, different companies will need different types of sentiment analysis depending on where they are. Now, when it comes to local businesses, we know reviews are really important—especially Google reviews. Let’s look at the darker side of that. What are the first things you’d say to discourage someone from going out and buying a bunch of fake reviews?

Chris: The first thing is: don’t do it. I’m not kidding—I just had that exact conversation about a month ago.

The business owner said, “Our competitors have a lot of reviews, and we feel like we need to catch up.” So they found someone offering to get them a thousand reviews in a short period of time.

First off, Google has gotten much better at flagging fake or manipulated reviews. They may not catch it right away—but they will eventually. This happened on Amazon, too. Sellers used to create review groups and inflate their ratings fast—going from zero to 100 or 150 reviews in a month or two. Amazon eventually connected the dots and removed the reviews, and those sellers went from 150 reviews down to 10. They lost all momentum.

So if you’re out there and you’ve done this and haven’t been flagged yet—just know it’s only a matter of time. That’s why we always recommend building a real process for earning reviews. Be consistent, and you’ll be surprised how quickly they add up. And more importantly, you won’t have to worry about losing them.

Zivko: Right. That’s that short-term thinking again—patchwork solutions. Maybe it works now, but when it gets flagged, you lose everything. It’s a momentum killer.

Even if it’s a slow build, and your competitor has been doing it right for a long time, you can catch up. Don’t get discouraged.

Chris: Exactly. And the same thing goes for backlinks. That’s a huge issue in SEO. We’ve had several clients come to us in the last six months saying, “Our website traffic is tanking. We don’t know why.” And yes, Google has rolled out several updates recently—but when we looked at their data, we noticed something.

As their number of backlinks was going up, their traffic was going down.

That’s because Google was detecting that the backlinks were low-quality or purchased. So they started deprioritizing the site. It’s the same pattern—whether it’s fake reviews or spammy backlinks. You lose momentum, and it’s just not worth it.

Zivko: Especially for long-term brands. If you’re trying to build something sustainable, the quick wins just aren’t worth it. All the energy you put into short-term tricks would be better spent on a legitimate process that will hold up over time.

Now, since we’re talking about backlinks, let’s segue into digital marketing audits. You also perform those—what components do you include in a digital marketing audit?

Chris: Sure. So if brand work relates to your core messaging and identity, digital marketing is more about your distribution channels—your media. That could be your website, social media, pay-per-click ads, PR, events, webinars, trade shows… really, anything you’re using to promote your business.

Now, not all of that is purely digital, but a lot of traditional channels tie into digital components. For example, a flyer might include a QR code. A trade show might lead to follow-up emails or online signups.

So when clients come to us—maybe after a rebrand or a strategic shift—they’ll often say, “We want to rebuild our digital marketing strategy.” That’s where the digital marketing audit comes in. We assess all the distribution methods they’re using and how effective they are.

Zivko: So in your approach, a digital marketing audit is really about auditing your distribution channels—regardless of whether it’s a website or a flyer. If you’re distributing media or content, you assess that.

Now let’s talk about content, especially since the rise of AI has increased content volume dramatically. When you’re doing audits, do you see more positives or negatives when people are using AI to increase content volume across their channels?

Chris: Overall, I think the effect has been negative. I think it’s doing more harm than good—and that’s a big conversation on its own. But I’ll simplify it.

First, Google cannot index all this content. And they’ve said they won’t try. Just because you create content doesn’t mean it’ll be indexed. They simply don’t have the resources to do it.

Some people might say, “Well, all of my content is being indexed right now.” That may be true—for now. But it depends on the quality of the content, your niche, and a bunch of other factors.

I’ve seen websites where only 10–20% of the content is indexed. A more common case is around 80%—there’s always an 80/20 rule in play. And a lot of that comes down to repetition. Most AI-generated content is just rephrasing what’s already been said.

Just search for any topic—you’ll see the top 10 results. Those are the pieces Google has deemed most valuable. Then everyone tries to copy them, using the “skyscraper” approach: take a 2,000-word post, make it 3,000, and hope that gets ranked higher.

But that’s not how it works.

AI has basically given everyone the ability to produce more bad content, faster. The question is: how much content can you actually research, write, review, edit, and publish that’s genuinely good?

And I’ll say this—AI is actually a decent writer. A 2024 study showed that 7 out of 10 people preferred AI-written content because it was easy to read. So it’s not the writing quality that’s the issue—it’s the substance.

A lot of AI content doesn’t say much. It’s generic. It’s padded. A 1,500-word blog post might only have 200–300 words of real value.

Zivko: Yeah, I’ve seen that too. At first it was really easy to spot—AI content was full of buzzwords like “unleash” and “wizardry.” It’s gotten better, especially with newer models, but there’s still a lot of fluff. It’s not hard to spot once you’re really reading.

Chris: Exactly. That’s the difference—when you sit down and actually read it. If it’s paragraph after paragraph of filler, you’ll notice.

Zivko: So, from that perspective—more volume usually just means more low-value content. Now let’s shift to AI-generated images and videos in social media. We’ve seen big brands like Coca-Cola get backlash for using AI-generated content—like those ads where the hands looked weird.

If a well-established brand wanted to use AI tools like DALL·E or Sora to generate B-roll for social media, what would you say to them during a digital marketing audit?

Chris: Right now, what we’re telling clients is: try it. See what happens.

If we go by what we’ve learned from AI-generated text—which has been around longer—Google doesn’t hate AI content. They have detectors, sure, but they’re more focused on value.

For a while, we didn’t even need detectors because you could tell. My favorite? If the word “delve” was in there, it was probably ChatGPT.

But the main point is: Google doesn’t penalize AI content just because it’s AI. It penalizes it if it lacks value.

The same will be true for AI-generated images and video. This isn’t going away—it’s just getting started. So the key is to proceed with caution.

Use AI to support your efforts, not replace them. Treat ChatGPT like a staff writer or a research assistant. It can help you brainstorm or outline, but you still have to review, verify, and make sure it feels authentic.

Just last week, someone came to us with a social media post that included a made-up statistic. They got tired of editing, published it, and boom—more than 100 angry comments calling it out. Their usual engagement was only 10–15 comments.

So, even if something looks okay at a glance, readers will notice if it’s off. The same goes for video. You need to keep asking: is this authentic? Does it feel human?

AI can enhance your work—but you should never let go of the human element.

Zivko: Right. Like you mentioned, AI should be like the intern—it can help with the work, but you still have to review it. You can’t just take what it gives you and publish it right away.

Now, I have a couple of clients who are coaches, consultants, mentors, and some of them feel like people are using AI as a kind of assistant or advisor. I want to run something by you. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone brought branding strategy notes they got from AI and asked, “What do you think about this?”

Chris: Absolutely. That has happened—and we expect it to happen more as time goes on.

You have to remember, tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, all these AI models are pulling information from what’s publicly available online. So when you’re asking for advice, you’re essentially getting a mashup of what’s out there. But where is that advice really coming from?

Let me give you a simple analogy. If you have chest pain and you Google it, the first 10 articles you see will likely suggest you’re having a heart attack—even if you just went to Taco Bell. That’s because Google pulls from the most “reliable” or prominent sources. The same thing applies when you ask ChatGPT or Gemini for marketing advice. Some of it will be solid. But some of it will be wrong—or even made up. That’s what we call a “hallucination.”

So yeah, you can ask AI for a brand strategy and get something that looks good. But which parts are accurate, and which aren’t? You have to be qualified to tell the difference. And that’s really hard to do when you’re new to the subject and just trying to figure things out.

Zivko: Right, and when you’re in that place of not knowing, it’s easy to grab something that looks polished and go too far with it. Instead of treating it as a draft or idea to improve upon, people take it as the final product.

Chris: Exactly. The better approach is to say, “Here’s a starting point—help me improve this.” Read it. Review it. Iterate. Don’t treat AI output as a done deal.

Zivko: Now let’s say a company has a solid digital marketing setup, and they’ve done a brand audit and a digital marketing audit. They’re running smoothly. On your website, you have a quadrant that covers “brand execution.” Is that the stage where all of this comes together? What does proper brand execution actually look like?

Chris: Good question. Execution is about having consistent, standardized processes—whether that’s for marketing or any other aspect of your brand. It’s about building repeatable systems.

When it comes to execution, we help clients with scheduling, staffing, resource planning, testing, KPIs—all the tools needed to streamline operations. The goal is to make the process efficient, measurable, and easy to improve over time. It’s all about measure, improve, iterate.

Zivko: Right—and the reason I ask is because you’ve already done the brand audit, so you know the strengths and weaknesses. You’ve looked at the distribution channels—both human-created and AI-driven content. At this stage, execution feels like it’s mostly about SOPs, scheduling, and building routines. But I rarely see people build standard operating procedures around testing and measuring. How do you help clients create testing environments without messing up their daily workflow?

Chris: That’s a great point—and let me back up just a bit. In every audit, we deliver a set of prioritized recommendations. It’s essentially a roadmap: “Here’s what you need to do to meet the goals you gave us at the beginning.”

So when a client receives the audit, they know what to do and in what order. That’s part of execution.

Now when it comes to testing and measurement, we don’t just hand them a system—we collaborate. It has to work for them. We can make suggestions all day long, but if it’s not practical, they won’t implement it.

So first, we assess their current capabilities—staffing, tools, bandwidth. Then we ask, “What are the top three things that will move the needle?” Maybe even just one. Then we break it down and prioritize.

Because here’s the reality: implementation takes time. A 90-day plan can easily stretch into six months or a year. So we try to help them get started, move in the right direction, and stay consistent. Some clients retain us to assist with execution—and we’ll walk with them through it. But ultimately, it’s on the client to follow through.

Zivko: Right, it’s like saying: “We’ll give you the tools and the plan, but we can’t change your business for you.” You’ll have to take what works and integrate it into your own structure. It’s not about tearing things down—it’s about adjusting what you already have.

Chris: Exactly. Every business is different. A cookie-cutter process won’t work. Our job is to walk alongside you, not rip pieces out of your company and plug in our own system.

Zivko: That makes sense—and I like that you’re upfront about it. You’ll go above and beyond to help a client succeed, but at some point, they have to carry the baton. They have to make it work within their own business.

Chris: Right. We want to be accountable for delivering results. But once we’ve delivered the audit and the roadmap, it becomes a shared responsibility.

Some clients do ask us to stay involved, and we’ve done a lot of the heavy lifting in those cases. But the business still has to take ownership. For their brand to grow and succeed, they’ve got to play their part. We can’t do that for them.

Zivko: Totally. So let’s say you’ve delivered your insights and recommendations. But then you start to feel that the business owner is hesitating—not sure whether they should execute what you gave them or do a full rebrand instead. What are some signs that rebranding is the right move? And what are some signs they’re using rebranding as a “fix” for a deeper problem?

Chris: That’s a great question—and you’ve been asking some really good ones in this whole conversation.

There are a couple of clear signs that a rebrand might be necessary. The first is a damaged reputation. Now, reputation can be repaired—but sometimes the time and effort required to fix it just isn’t practical. I don’t mean you shut the business down and start over—but you may need to reposition and change how you operate.

Often, it’s not the company’s fault directly. Maybe they outsourced something to a vendor or partner who let them down. That’s usually the root of it—limitations in delivery, poor vendor management. But if the damage is deep, and public perception is negative, a rebrand may be necessary to reset.

The other major reason is reinvention. If your business has evolved so much that your current identity doesn’t reflect what you offer anymore—if you’ve completely shifted who you serve or what you provide—that’s a clear signal.

You may look at your current customer base and realize half of them are legacy clients from the “old you.” That’s a good time to update the brand, change the logo, maybe even the name, and reposition yourself for your current focus.

Zivko: I’ve seen that too—especially when someone buys a business that already has some negative reputation. Even with new management and better processes, that old perception still lingers online. In those cases, a rebrand can help cut ties with the past.

And regarding reinvention, I think it’s hard for some business owners to accept that they’ve outgrown their original customer base. The idea of “firing” old clients can be scary. But in reality, those clients just naturally fade away when the offering no longer fits them.

Chris: Exactly. It’s what we call “addition by subtraction.” You don’t have to force anyone out—they’ll self-select. And by the time you’re rebranding, you’re probably already serving the new kind of client anyway. You just haven’t updated your outward identity to match.

One thing we encourage is looking at your top 20%—your highest-value clients—and inviting them to be part of the rebrand. Ask them to complete a survey, provide input, and contribute to the new direction. Make them feel like a part of the process, and they’ll be even more loyal.

Zivko: That’s such a smart move—taking your best customers and involving them in the rebrand. Not only do you get valuable insights, but they also feel personally connected to the new brand. I’ve never thought of it that way, but it makes total sense.

Chris: Exactly. Those are the people you want more of. If you build your new identity with them in mind—and with their feedback—you’ll naturally attract more clients like them.

Zivko: That’s a powerful insight. So now we’ve looked at the right reasons to rebrand: bad reputation, reinvention, better alignment with your ideal client.

But what about the wrong reasons? What are some situations where a business thinks they need to rebrand, but you realize it’s actually a different problem?

Chris: I’m glad you circled back to that. One of the most common misconceptions is that rebranding will fix reputational damage. Sometimes that’s true—but only if the damage is extreme. Most of the time, it’s better to address the issue directly. Own it, communicate with your customers, and work to repair the relationship. You can actually come out stronger on the other side.

But a rebrand won’t fix the root issue—especially if it was operational, not image-related.

Another one we hear is: “We want to be a higher-priced product, so we need a more luxurious look.” That’s not always true. Just because you want to raise your price point doesn’t mean you need to change your brand. Instead, look at why you’re attracting the customers you currently have and what differentiates your highest-value customers.

Also, we hear this from companies with multiple locations that have drifted apart. Each location is doing its own thing, and there’s inconsistency across the brand. That’s not necessarily a reason to rebrand—it might be a signal that you need better alignment, better execution, or internal branding work.

A lot of times, just calling everyone in and saying, “Hey, here are the brand guidelines,” and then enforcing those consistently—that alone can fix a lot of problems.

Zivko: So there are cases where a full rebrand feels a little drastic. And speaking of drastic, one of the most talked-about rebrands from 2024 into 2025 is Jaguar’s. People are still discussing it.

When you look at that rebrand—not just the design, but the strategy—do you think they were trying to solve a deeper problem through rebranding? Could they have approached it differently? Or was Jaguar really at a point where rebranding made sense?

Chris: Well, it wasn’t that long ago that Jaguar was still part of the luxury car conversation. I can’t help but wonder—of course, I’m not on the inside—but I can’t help but wonder if there wasn’t something they could’ve done before taking that big step.

It’s not uncommon for luxury brands to become stale or sidelined for a variety of reasons. But I’d like to think that if they had taken a closer look at what was really happening—maybe some internal changes, some process improvements, or even brand refreshes—they might not have needed such a dramatic overhaul.

Now, maybe there are things they haven’t made public, and maybe those factors justified the decision. But based on what we’ve seen, it feels like there could have been other options before going that far.

Zivko: Yeah, because the car itself is very different now. The design language changed completely. And it’s not like people disliked Jaguar—it wasn’t some brand everyone was down on.

So from your perspective, it sounds like they may have tried to solve something with rebranding that could’ve been solved with better strategy or operational alignment first.

Chris: Possibly, yes. A rebrand shouldn’t be the first option, especially for legacy brands with that kind of history. Sometimes it’s better to start with internal improvements—standard operating procedures, customer experience upgrades, consistent messaging—and see if that shifts momentum before changing the whole brand identity.

Zivko: That one’s fresh in people’s minds, but on the flip side, do you have a favorite example of a company that didn’t rebrand—but instead refreshed their brand and absolutely nailed it?

Chris: I do. One of my favorite examples is Old Spice.

I mean, I remember when Old Spice was basically your granddad’s deodorant. The name itself—Old Spice—wasn’t exactly trendy. But look at what they did. They didn’t change the name, but they refreshed everything: the packaging, the advertising, the tone, even some of the product lines.

They went from being outdated to being humorous, cool, and relevant. Now you see young guys using it. They found a way to modernize the brand without abandoning their legacy. That’s what I call a successful brand refresh.

Zivko: That’s a great example. Old Spice didn’t need a total rebrand—just a refresh. They modernized the visuals and messaging while keeping the identity intact.

We’ve seen that from other brands too—Google, Salesforce, GoDaddy. Small tweaks. Gradual evolution. They didn’t throw everything out and start over. I think business owners should feel encouraged by that. Sometimes a refresh is all you need.

Chris: Exactly. You don’t always have to go in a completely different direction. Sometimes tweaks to your logo, visuals, or voice are enough to make a big difference. And when it’s done right, that refresh can make your brand feel new again—without confusing your audience.

Zivko: That’s a great point. Now, Chris, you’ve shared a ton of valuable insight—about brand audits, digital marketing audits, content strategies, and even rebranding versus refreshing.

If someone wants to reach out and schedule a consultation with you to talk through their business and see what you might recommend, how can they get in touch?

Chris: The best way is to visit the website. There’s a big button right on the homepage where they can request a consultation.

We also have a short intake form we ask people to complete. That helps us understand a little about their business before the meeting so we can make the most of our time together.

We also have an 800 number they can call, and I’m active on LinkedIn—so they can always reach out to me there.

Zivko: Fantastic. Chris, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you for all the insights. This was a really valuable conversation, and we wish you all the best.