Rebrand vs. brand refresh

A refresh usually evolves the existing expression and leaves the strategy where it is: same name, same color family, same silhouette of the mark, but tighter letterforms, a modern typeface, a real palette with accessible contrast, new photography, rules that work on a phone. Mastercard keeping the interlocking circles in 2016 and Google going geometric in 2015 are refreshes. A rebrand usually reaches further down: positioning, brand architecture, sometimes the name, usually the identity itself, and it needs a story customers can repeat. Airbnb in 2014 and Twitter becoming X are rebrands. Treat that split as a rough guide, not a bright line: scope sits on a continuum, and plenty of projects sold internally as a refresh quietly move the positioning too, so agree on what is actually changing before anyone argues about the label.

Choose a refresh when the equity is healthy and only the execution has aged: the mark cannot render at 32px, the palette fails contrast, the type licence is a mess. Choose a rebrand when the name lies about what you sell now, when a merger leaves you with two of everything, or when the old name carries damage you cannot outrun.

Two hard truths. The logo is the cheapest part; the real bill is the tail of signage, packaging, app icons, printed stock, email templates, domain moves, redirects, and trademark work. And customers mostly notice the change, not the improvement, which is how Gap 2010 lasted six days and Tropicana 2009 cost a reported 20 percent of sales before being reversed. Inventory your distinctive brand assets first and decide on purpose which ones you are willing to spend.