⏱ 7 min read

After an acquisition, rebranding is typically among the first initiatives. New ownership brings revised business priorities and expects the brand to signal those shifts to the market quickly — becoming broader, more premium, more modern, capable of entering new categories and supporting higher price points.

In 2023, we worked on a case in the plant-based food category that followed this pattern. Shortly after the deal closed, the brand launched a full redesign aimed at broadening positioning, building new brand imagery, expanding distribution and increasing perceived value.
Situations like this, however, often expose brands to a design-led trap.

A brand is not built by a logo or color system alone, but by a network of associations accumulated over time and stored in consumer memory. Each interaction with packaging either reinforces those associations or weakens them. As a result, rebranding sits directly at the intersection of creative expression and commercial performance.

When creative decisions are not anchored in strategy, that associative network becomes harder to maintain. Established mental links can weaken or fragment, and in some cases, recognizable entry points disappear altogether. That increases cognitive load for shoppers, forcing them to reassess the brand rather than recognize it instantly. In fast-moving consumer goods categories, where purchase decisions are often made in seconds, that added friction can translate into lost selection at the shelf.

The first stage focused primarily on visual system alignment. Core brand colors were retained, a new element was added to the existing logo, and a unified design system was introduced across categories. Taste cues were strengthened through distinctive sketch-style illustrations.

This phase achieved its immediate goals. The brand entered new categories, and consumers correctly interpreted the broader positioning. The assortment began to function as a portfolio rather than as a single-product brand.

However, the next challenge proved more complex.
The team needed to address two questions: how to reinforce competitive advantages within the brand’s existing associative framework, and how to communicate those advantages in ways that align with shopper expectations at the shelf.

The next phase relied on rapid visual testing, in-depth interviews and shelf behavior analysis.
The findings were consistent. Shoppers do not want to decode packaging. If the product is not immediately understood, they default to a neighboring option. Taste remained the dominant driver of choice, and expressive but abstract visuals underperformed against rich, product-forward food imagery.

Research also showed that internal category navigation was not always clear. Products did not consistently signal how they differed from each other.

At this point, the strategic frame shifted from differentiation to distinctiveness. The goal was no longer to be unlike competitors, but to look appropriate for the category while remaining recognizable. If a product does not register as a legitimate member of the shelf set, creative originality alone does not improve its chances of being selected.

The conclusion was that the brand required a more functional architecture — one that reduced cognitive load and supported faster decision-making.
Within the plant-based segment, the primary reference point for shoppers was the dairy shelf, which functions as the closest substitute in usage terms. The brand’s core advantage — variety of plant bases and flavor profiles — needed to be communicated instantly, without additional explanation.

This brief was developed together with strategic partner Alexandr Magidson and translated into a corrective redesign.

Following the rollout, the brand reported faster growth compared with previous periods, with value sales up by an estimated 40–50% year over year and higher off-take without additional marketing investment.

Internal packaging evaluations also showed strong acceptance of the updated system, with more than 95% positive feedback and broad willingness to accept the revised price positioning.

While multiple factors typically contribute to performance shifts, the consistency of results across categories and retail partners pointed to improved shelf communication and portfolio navigation as meaningful contributors.

1. Rebranding reflects strategy, it does not replace it.
Without strategic change, radical redesign often erodes existing mental availability faster than it builds new associations.

2. Brand architecture should guide visual execution.
Clear portfolio structure and decision logic reduce cognitive load and support faster choice across categories.

3. Category fit often outperforms visual disruption.
On crowded shelves, the distinctive option frequently outperforms the most creative one.

In commercial terms, the critical decision-maker is not the brand team or the agency, but the shopper at the shelf. And in some cases, progress depends less on visual reinvention than on restoring the decision logic shoppers already rely on.

The task was deliberately narrow: improve category clarity, highlight base variety and reinforce taste appeal.

Based on this brief, the design system was adjusted to prioritize functional communication over expressive abstraction.

In this case, rebranding did not take place as a single event. It unfolded over several stages, with ongoing hypothesis testing and consumer feedback. Each phase was designed to address a specific business task rather than to deliver a final visual statement.

The key question was not when the design would be considered complete, but when the business objectives would be met.

Progress was measured through commercial indicators: sales dynamics, off-take, distribution expansion and retailer acceptance, rather than through internal approval of visual assets.

Key product attributes — base, vegan status, reduced sugar — were structured into consistent on-pack modules, reducing information search and cognitive effort.

Core brand color was retained, while line-level color coding was introduced to improve portfolio navigation and reduce internal cannibalization.

Abstract illustrations were replaced with large, textured images of fruits and nuts, later extended to desserts and chocolate, restoring appetite appeal.

Product types were labeled using straightforward, descriptive naming to make contents immediately clear.

Testing began with a priority category. After positive feedback from consumers and retail partners, the updated system was rolled out across the full portfolio.

Why rebranding often follows an acquisition

Why a phased rebranding approach works

When alignment is not enough

Brief and execution

When brand architecture affects commercial performance

Key takeaways for brand and business leaders

From differentiation to distinctiveness

Rebranding is often positioned as a creative update, but in practice it functions as a business decision with direct commercial consequences. When visual change is aligned with shifts in business strategy, it can support growth. When it is driven primarily by aesthetics, it can dilute brand equity and, in some cases, slow sales.

Brand owners frequently expect a new identity to justify higher shelf prices, enable category expansion and increase perceived value. However, these outcomes are typically achieved only when visual updates reflect structural changes in positioning, portfolio or route to market, rather than operating as a standalone redesign.

This article examines why redesigns that are not grounded in strategy rarely deliver commercial impact, why phased rebranding is often a lower-risk approach for active brands, and how brand architecture can become a functional sales tool rather than a purely visual system.

Let’s milk your brand’s full potential. Book a free consult.