Jaguar lost its long-standing symbol before having a new asset strong enough to replace it, causing customers to lose recognition points and the brand to fall into a void. Mastercard did the opposite: 20 months of research, 80% recognition of the symbol before removing the text. The principle is: do not remove accumulating assets until there is a new asset mature enough to replace it.
In this article · 5 sections
In 2024, Jaguar announced a completely new identity system. The "growler" leopard disappeared. The old font disappeared. The colors disappeared. What replaced them was a geometric uppercase letter cluster, a vibrant color palette, and an advertisement video without any cars. The public and professional reactions came quickly and consistently: confusion. Not because the new design was bad, but because there was nothing to anchor to.
Identity assets are accumulated capital
In the branding industry, the elements that help customers recognize a brand without reading its name are called "distinctive brand assets." This is not an aesthetic concept. These are business assets, measurable by two metrics. Fame is the level of popularity within the target audience. Uniqueness is the degree of exclusivity associated with your brand, not confused with competitors. These two metrics were developed and published by researcher Jenni Romaniuk at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute in the book Building Distinctive Brand Assets (2018).
The growler symbol of Jaguar appeared consistently on cars, showrooms, and communication materials for decades. As a result, it achieved both high Fame in the luxury car segment and near-total Uniqueness because no one else used it. When Jaguar removed that asset, they did not just change their image. They erased decades of accumulated capital in one go.
Mastercard did the opposite: build first, dismantle later
In 2019, Mastercard removed the word "Mastercard" from the logo at many touchpoints. On the surface, this is a bold move similar to Jaguar. But the sequence is entirely different.
Mastercard spent 20 months researching before making a decision. They measured the Fame and Uniqueness of the red-yellow circle symbol globally. Only when the recognition rate reached 80% without the text did they begin to remove the text, and they did so step by step at each touchpoint, not all at once. The symbol had enough "capital" to stand alone. Removing the text was merely confirming an existing reality, not creating a new one.
Jaguar did the opposite. The old asset was removed first. The new asset had not been built. The electric vehicle line, which should have been the foundation for the new identity, was still not on the market when the identity system was announced. Customers looked and saw no new Jaguar. They saw a void.
Distinctive assets only create presence in memory when consistently repeated over time. Consistency is not about aesthetics; it is a memory mechanism.
Jenni Romaniuk, Building Distinctive Brand Assets, Oxford University Press, 2018
The gap between removing and completing
This is a point where many Vietnamese businesses also struggle, not just global brands. The decision to change identity often comes from feelings like "the logo is old," "it doesn't look premium," or "I want a new direction." These reasons are not wrong. However, if the action starts with removal, while the replacement is not mature enough to stand on its own, the brand will fall into a dangerous phase. Customers no longer recognize the old brand, but there is nothing new to recognize in its place.
That phase is not rebirth, but loss of capital.
Inventory assets before touching them.
Before any decision to change identity, the most important question is not "Is this logo beautiful?" The right question should be: "Which elements in the current identity are helping customers recognize us, and to what extent do we own them?"
This inventory needs to be conducted systematically, not based on internal intuition. Elements with high Fame and high Uniqueness are assets that need to be protected. They should be transferred in a controlled manner to the new identity system, rather than being erased and starting over.
- Dominant color: do customers associate this color with you, or with the entire industry?
- Shape or symbol: does it have enough fame to stand alone without a name?
- Font: is it distinctive enough to be recognized immediately?
- Sound, motion, or scent if any: what have we accumulated?
Elements that have not accumulated anything can be replaced. Elements that are carrying capital need a transfer plan, not a decision to remove.
Legitimate triggers and superficial triggers.
Not every rebrand is wrong. There are cases where changing identity is necessary. This could be due to a merger or split that requires differentiation, a reputation crisis deep enough that recovery with the old name is impossible, or a business that has evolved to the point where the original promise no longer reflects reality.
Jaguar theoretically has a real trigger. They are transitioning to fully electric, moving from the mainstream sports segment to ultra-luxury. That is a valid reason for change. The issue is not with the decision to change. The issue is with the order: removing before having something to fill in.
Frivolous triggers are different. "The new director wants a personal touch," "the logo looks boring," or "the competitor just rebranded, so we should too" are common reasons. With these reasons, rebranding often costs more than the value it creates. Rebranding amplifies the reality of the business, not concealing it. If the reality hasn't changed, rebranding is just changing clothes.
References
Jenni Romaniuk, Building Distinctive Brand Assets (Oxford University Press, 2018). Mastercard brand evolution case, 2019. Jaguar rebrand timeline, 2024. McKinsey, The Business Value of Design, 2018. Byron Sharp, How Brands Grow (Oxford University Press, 2010).