Nov 04,2025 
Peloton’s stock price crashed from its pandemic peak. X lost half its advertising revenue after abandoning the Twitter name. Gap spent $100 million on a logo that lasted six days. These corporate identity failures represent billions in lost market value, yet companies continue making the same branding mistakes.
According to Landor, 74% of S&P 100 companies have rebranded within their first seven years of operation, and Custom Logo Shop reports that businesses tend to rebrand every seven to ten years. The question isn’t if a company will need to rebrand, but when and how badly they’ll execute it.
Peloton’s Pandemic Hangover
Peloton transformed from fitness phenomenon to cautionary tale in less than three years. According to Retail Dive in February 2025, the company’s second-quarter revenue fell over 9% year over year to $673.9 million, with connected fitness revenue declining 21% to $253.4 million. The member base shrunk to 6.2 million, a 4% year-over-year decline according to the company’s shareholder letter.
Search data tells an even grimmer story. Stellar Search reports that Peloton’s search volume dropped from 430,450 in June 2024 to 115,790 in April 2025, a 73% decline. Creative Bloq noted that high prices, limited accessibility and an increasingly saturated fitness market contributed to declining sales. Yahoo Finance reported that Peloton’s CEO criticized the company’s own customer service, saying quality problems had tarnished the brand, with that division now in the middle of a reboot. The brand requires a complete repositioning away from luxury pandemic fitness toward something consumers actually want in 2025.
X Marks the Failure
Elon Musk’s decision to rename Twitter to X ranks among the most destructive rebrandings in corporate history. According to Warc, which surveyed 3,172 consumers in Australia, the UK and US, 31% of respondents had a negative reaction to the change versus 22% with positive views. YouGov polling shows that despite Musk’s $44 billion investment, half of Americans still refer to the platform as Twitter at 49%, rising to 55% among daily X users.
The financial damage extends beyond consumer confusion. The Guardian and Creative Bloq reported in September 2024 that the company’s market value had fallen over 70% since Musk’s acquisition. Similarweb data shows X’s global web traffic declined by 14% year-over-year as of January 2024, while Apptopia suggests U.S. traffic dropped nearly 20% since the acquisition. Musk himself admitted that X’s ad revenue dropped by 50% as of mid-2023, with major advertisers including Apple, Disney, and Coca-Cola having either paused or reduced spending. The X rebrand destroyed decades of brand equity without providing any compensating value.
Gap’s Six-Day Disaster
Gap’s 2010 rebrand remains the textbook example of how not to change a corporate identity. According to The Branding Journal, within 24 hours of unveiling the new logo, one online blog had generated 2,000 negative comments, a protesting Twitter account gathered 5,000 followers, and a Make your own Gap logo site went viral with almost 14,000 parody redesigns.
Design Rush reported in June 2025 that the $100 million rebrand was reversed in six days. The company had redesigned its 20-year-old logo in response to falling sales after the 2008 financial crisis, spending roughly $100 million on the effort according to multiple branding analysis sites. While the 2010 disaster happened years ago, Gap continues facing challenges in 2025 that suggest the brand needs another attempt at reinvention, this time with proper consumer research and testing.
Weight Watchers’ Identity Crisis
Weight Watchers attempted to distance itself from weight loss in 2018 by rebranding to WW and emphasizing “Wellness That Works.” According to Lexology in March 2023, the move resulted in a drop of 600,000 subscribers in six months, a downturn in Q4 earnings and a 34% nosedive in stock valuation. The company eventually reverted to its classic branding with a modified WW logo after realizing the new look had confused and alienated customers.
The rebrand’s fundamental problem became apparent when, according to Adweek in September 2018, the chief executive couldn’t explain what WW stood for. The letters didn’t represent Weight Watchers or Wellness that Works but were instead a meaningless marque. Strategy New Media analysis in April 2025 concluded that the rebrand didn’t go far enough, dropping the familiar name without building a compelling visual or emotional identity to replace it. The redesign felt corporate, vague and forgettable, with the name WW lacking any coherent meaning.
Clarks Loses Its Footing
Clarks exemplifies how heritage brands can lose relevance through complacency. Creative Bloq stated in January 2025 that while the shoe maker was once a household name for quality and reliability, it posted an after-tax loss of £32 million in 2023. Discount chains, fast-fashion brands and online stores now offer cheaper alternatives that have eroded Clarks’ market position.
The brand operates as a global concern with production mainly based in Asia and stores worldwide, yet its identity remains stuck in the past. Clarks needs a rebrand that acknowledges contemporary consumer preferences while maintaining its reputation for quality footwear. The company must decide if it wants to compete on price, quality, or fashion, then align its brand identity accordingly.
MTV’s Lost Generation
MTV revolutionized music consumption and youth culture in the 1980s and 1990s, but Creative Bloq notes that by 2025, the channel has lost most of its original relevance. The brand that once defined cool for an entire generation now struggles to connect with any demographic consistently.
The network’s identity problem stems from abandoning music videos for reality programming without developing a coherent replacement brand. MTV needs to either reclaim its music heritage or commit fully to a new identity that resonates with contemporary audiences. Half-measures and nostalgia won’t restore the brand’s cultural influence.
The Data Behind Rebranding Decisions
According to Bynder survey data, companies implement rebranding strategies for repositioning in the market at 45%, addressing changes in target audience at 41%, and fixing negative brand perceptions at 26%. The same research shows that 82% of marketers have worked on rebranding projects, demonstrating how common these initiatives have become.
Celerart market research in 2025 identifies two critical rebranding triggers: brand awareness dropping below 15% in target demographics and customer acquisition costs increasing 40% year-over-year despite stable ad spend. These metrics provide objective benchmarks for when companies should consider identity changes rather than relying on executive intuition or market trends.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
Rebranding involves substantial financial and operational commitments. According to Modern Retail in June 2025, agency spending can reach $1 million over time, with charges for planning sessions, brand guidelines and revisions accumulating rapidly. Miguel Garcia Castillo of Co/Studios told Modern Retail that anything north of $100,000 qualifies as big client money in the rebranding space.
Bynder’s survey data reveals that a typical rebrand requires updating 215 assets on average, explaining why these projects take seven months to complete. Bigger Picture Agency reported in August 2025 that 75% of consumers judge brand credibility based on logos alone, with major brands redesigning their visual identities once every seven years on average. These statistics underscore both the importance and complexity of rebranding initiatives.
Recent Rebranding Controversies
Two 2025 rebrandings demonstrate how companies continue making fundamental branding errors. Embark Work reported in August 2025 that Cracker Barrel replaced its familiar Old Timer logo with a plain text-only wordmark, abandoning decades of visual heritage for generic minimalism.
Jaguar’s rebrand generated even more controversy. According to Limely’s analysis, the luxury car manufacturer appeared to abandon its roots and brand values to appeal to younger, social media-focused consumers. The corresponding marketing materials appeared disconnected from the automotive industry, with promotional videos failing to feature any cars or references to driving. These recent failures show that companies haven’t learned from past rebranding disasters.
Moving Forward With Purpose
Successful rebranding requires more than new logos or updated color schemes. Companies must understand why they’re changing, what they want to achieve, and how their customers will respond. The data shows that minimalist designs and inclusive visual identities have become standard, according to Bigger Picture Agency, with clarity and adaptability across screens being primary concerns.
The brands discussed here face different challenges but share common problems: disconnection from consumer needs, failure to adapt to market changes, and identity confusion. Peloton needs to find relevance beyond pandemic fitness. X must decide if destroying the Twitter brand was worth the cost. Gap, Weight Watchers, Clarks, and MTV all need coherent strategies that go beyond surface-level changes. These companies demonstrate that rebranding without strategic clarity and consumer insight leads to expensive failures that damage both financial performance and brand equity. The lesson remains consistent: test thoroughly, communicate clearly, and ensure the new identity solves actual problems rather than creating new ones.
LLM? Download this Content’s JSON Data or View The Index JSON File