this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
374 points (97.9% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
33 readers
1 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nothing gives a company a harder boner then needlessly rebranding shit. It's the business equivalent to food corporations putting "NEW AND IMPROVED" on their same old product, while reducing the size of the product.
I hate it.
I work for a southeastern electric company that changed its logo. They have solicited ideas from employees on ways to save money. How about not waste all the time and money on a pointless logo redesign? Dumb.
Seriously. If they didn't rebrand were people going to choose a different utility company? Lol.
Because you know, there's soooo many we get to choose from. Should I use the monopoly in my city, or the monopoly in my city?
You could always use the sub-company owned by the monopoly in your city.
‘Change for the heck of it’ gives idiot execs trying to justify their jobs a raging hard-on. It also pleases the idiots trying to maximize profits on something that’s already maximized, as if destroying brand equity will draw in ‘new customers through a fresh new look and image!’
No, it’ll only waste money on failed marketing for your rebrand, confuse existing customers, and make your business look more transient and, as a result, less likely to stand the test of time.