Campbell’s Soup has a ‘tricky needle to thread’ in rebranding without soup, analysts say

The rebrand of Campbell’s Soup to The Campbell’s Company may be a suave transfer — if it’s achieved neatly. The change aims to wait on the company relevant as it further diversifies past soups, with the goal of preserving customer loyalty while avoiding confusion.

“Campbell’s is being smart about their rebrand,” said Brandon Rollins, the CEO of Pangea Marketing Agency. “This a moral example of how a neatly-established brand can update its image with a light touch.”

The rebrand highlights how companies, regardless of their age, can evolve, while avoiding the pitfalls of more drastic changes. Rollins compares Campbell’s approach with Twitter’s transition to X, which he said was far more radical and potentially confusing.

Ryan White, a marketing professor at the Brigham Young University in Hawaii, told Quartz that rebranding established companies can be fraught with challenges.

“Branding dilapidated companies is sticky,” White said. There’s a chance that it may “inject new existence into a faltering brand,” on the alternative hand it may also alienate loyal customers by erasing the nostalgia and cultural significance associated with the original brand. “It’s a tough needle to thread,” he added.

Knowing when it’s time to evolve

For brands with high recognition, love Campbell’s, clinging to an outdated name can be detrimental. Rollins argues that it threatens to stifle the company, boxing it in to appropriate one aspect of its business, such as soup. Dropping “Soup” from the name is a proactive step in embracing a broader product range.

Earlier this week, Campbell’s CEO Mark Clouse said the company today is “so far more than soup,” and wants to point of interest on 16 of its key brands, including popular objects love Goldfish (CPB) crackers and V8 beverages. The company plans to request shareholder approval for the name change at its annual meeting later this year.

Rollins said that rebranding is costly however necessary if companies want to prevent their dilapidated name from limiting their evolution.

Such has been the case for Starbucks (SBUX) and Dunkin’. In 2011, Starbucks introduced a new “siren” logo that did no longer include its name or the note “coffee,” sparking frustration among devoted customers. Meanwhile, in 2018, Dunkin’ said it would fall “Donuts” from its name in an effort to replicate a point of interest on beverage and breakfast objects, rather than appropriate donuts.

For company’s thinking about rebranding, Rollins advocates for a “accomplish no harm” approach, where long standing companies rebrand in a “delicate” way to avoid confusing customers or losing out on their competitive standing.

On the various hand, Professor White argues that simplified branding, while popular, is just not any longer always the simplest route. He pointed to Burberry’s contemporary return to a more ornate logo as a successful rebrand.

Rollins and White each say a brand refresh, if achieved thoughtfully, can reinforce customer loyalty and toughen market place. “It needs to be achieved with crude care and ought to no longer be taken lightly,” White said.