Over two months into the war, with the fire in Gaza and over Israeli cities unceasing, the government's naming committee will soon convene to find a name for it. According to a report by Kan News, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded to find a name for the war, arguing that "Iron Swords" is a name for an operation, not a war. In truth, "Iron Swords" is an excellent example of a name that didn't catch on, meaning the media and public didn't adopt it. The reason it became so urgent to address this during the war is due to the names that did catch on - "Black Sabbath" and "October 7," both referring to the horrific massacre around Israel, reflecting a crisis of trust between the citizens and the state.
This is an excellent opportunity to explain when it is right and especially when it is not to perform rebranding. Rebranding and repositioning are important tools in managing communication crises, especially when companies or organizations face an image crisis. This process involves significant changes in elements such as the brand name, logo, visual identity, messages, and the brand's overall strategy. The purpose of rebranding is to convey new messages and change public perception of the brand, especially after it has been damaged by negative controversies or difficulties.
McDonald's did this when it faced harsh criticism about the healthiness of its food but ensured that the cosmetic branding change was accompanied by adding healthier options to the menu. If a branding change in logo, name, or slogans is not accompanied by a deeper change, in the company's values as reflected in its updated story, in a new service charter and transparency, and in improving products or services – the process itself can lead to another crisis for the company or organization.
Countries around the world have also rebranded. Estonia took the letter 'e' and turned it into a national value as a leader in its digital services: digital government and elections (E-Government), comprehensive online services for all citizens, digital education, and a fully digitized healthcare system. When rebranding is based on a real process of change, felt by the target audience - the citizens in this case - it works. Conversely, Burma's attempt to rebrand as Myanmar, coming on the heels of reforms it underwent, failed to gain recognition by many countries after hopes for democracy were dashed, and the military took control in a coup.
So, how is rebranding done correctly?
The rebranding process usually begins with a thorough assessment of the brand's current positioning. This includes collecting feedback from customers, analyzing data, and understanding the brand's current image in the eyes of the public. Then, the relevant target audience should be identified, and the brand's positioning should be redefined according to new goals. The next step is developing a rebranding strategy, including changes in name, logo, visual identity, and key messages. New campaigns and communication strategies should reflect the new branding and convey the new messages.
For instance, Mastercard initiated a rebranding process in 2006, adding a third white circle above the two famous-colored circles in its logo. The rebranding process was conducted within the company's management without paying attention to public opinion. The result was a failure that forced the company to revert to the two-circle logo to regain customer loyalty.
Who shouldn't rebrand?
Rebranding and repositioning are important strategies in managing communication crises, but they should be approached with caution as sometimes rebranding creates a crisis instead of resolv it. For example, if the image crisis is caused by deeper issues in the product or service, rebranding may not suffice and can even be perceived as inauthentic. In such cases, the root of the problem should be addressed before trying to improve the image through rebranding. Conversely, if the brand is already known and positively recognized, rebranding can be unnecessary and even harmful, as it can confuse consumers and damage loyalty built over the years.
Returning to the war, the predetermined names that the committee will examine are: "War of Genesis (Bereshit)," "War of Simchat Torah," and "Meshiv Haruah." Except for "Simchat Torah," which is somewhat accepted in the ultra-Orthodox community, it's hard to see the public accepting any of these names just because the committee decided. The failure of rebranding a war that began with a historic national failure lies in the timing and the public trust crisis, which cannot be fixed by a name change. The solution to "October 7" lies in a process of rebuilding trust between the Israeli government and its citizens, especially those living in the Gaza envelope and near the northern border. Attempting to address a trust crisis with superficial and inauthentic rebranding is doomed to failure from the outset.
