IICRC is doing what most companies with image problems do:
Fix their problems. Get a new name. A new logo. A new color scheme.
Not only can it be expensive to execute a complete rebrand (is this really the best use of IICRC money?), but it can also be risky. Sometimes consumers won’t accept a rebranding. Netflix "Quickster" is the most recent example.
There is only so much that you can do with a new brand when the underlying product has problems. There's an old saw about putting lipstick on a certain barnyard animal.
Brands can be turned around without walking away from their name recognition. Apple was an also-ran in the computer business in the 1990s. When Steve Jobs returned as CEO in 1997, should he have renamed it? Of course not. You cannot build brand equity by renaming your brand.
On the positive side, this rebranding should be the signal of major change and that change should be evidenced throughout the organization and conveyed through every touchpoint. The entire organization has to be aligned to deliver on the promises implied in the rebranding. This isn't the place for puffery. Merely claiming to be improved is meaningless — and using words like "trust" do nothing but heighten skepticism.
I'm anxious to see the changes in the organization, not sure about the new name though. Maybe it will grow on me, but my first impression is not favorable.
The Clean Trust Certified Master Textile Cleaner just doesn't sound right.
What do you think about the IICRC rebranding as "The Clean Trust"?
Rebranding of AT&T by Stephen Colbert