Don’t understand why they would spend millions rebranding their well recognised and respected brand. Just get rid of all non-beachball brands. People generally feel comfortable with what they know, familiarity is what people like and firms push brand loyalty always. However if it is a brand that has lost confidence which certainly doesn’t apply to Stagecoach. The whole rebranding May appeal to the bus spotters but not customers.
Yeah, you can see how First might want to hide its brand as it is in a way toxic - but Stagecoach is (so far as buses go) a respected brand, so why change it?
(There are those who hate any bus company just because they are a bus company, but realistically they can be ignored)
Think there's a bit of a misunderstanding and it may seem like semantics but really, it's not.
Stagecoach AREN'T rebranding. When you fundamentally change a brand and what it stands for, that is rebranding. In the bus world, the biggest examples of that are probably the creation of the First and Arriva brands - taking and removing a disparate set of other brands, liveries, images etc and creating something new. That is rebranding. Of course, there were many others like the creation of Northumbria and North Western out of the better cuts of United and Ribble.
What Stagecoach seem to be doing is refreshing the brand. This is not to fundamentally change (the logo and name are staying the same) but to freshen it up.
All firms in all markets do it and always have. Of course, some rebrands/refreshes have been notorious - re: Consignia, or the British Airways one are ones that were reversed. The BP sun instead of the shield motif was another but we got used to it. Firms do it to either leave a toxic brand/image behind OR to simply pep up a flagging image. The latter is probably true here.
