Jaguar removes what it owns

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 text, a vibrant color palette, and an advertisement video featuring no cars at all. The public and professional response was swift and consistent: 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 that can be measured by two indicators: Fame (the level of recognition within the target audience) and Uniqueness (the exclusivity associated with your brand, not confused with competitors). These two indicators were developed and published by researcher Jenni Romaniuk at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute in the book Building Distinctive Brand Assets (2018).

The growler leopard of Jaguar, after decades of consistent presence on cars, showrooms, and communication materials, had accumulated both high Fame in the luxury car segment and near-absolute 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. However, the order is completely different.

Mastercard took 20 months of research before making a decision. They measured the Fame and Uniqueness of the red-yellow circle symbol globally. Only when the recognition 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 go through a phase where customers no longer recognize it, but there is nothing new to recognize instead.

That stage is not a "rebirth". It is a 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 is: "Which elements of the current identity help 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, or at least transferred in a controlled manner to the new identity system, not erased and started over from scratch.

• 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 applicable: what have you accumulated?

Elements that have not accumulated anything can be replaced. Elements that are valuable require 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: a merger or split that requires differentiation, a reputation crisis deep enough that recovery with the old name is impossible, or the business has developed to the point where the initial promise no longer reflects reality.

Theoretically, Jaguar has a real trigger. They are transitioning to fully electric, moving away from the mainstream sports segment to ultra-luxury. That is a valid reason for change. The issue is not the decision to change. The issue is the order: remove before there is anything to fill in.

Frivolous triggers are different. "The new director wants a personal touch," "I find the logo boring," "the competitor just rebranded, so we should too" are reasons that often make rebranding cost more than the value it creates. Rebranding amplifies the reality of the business, not conceals it. If the reality has not changed, rebranding is just changing clothes.