The hammer that broke the Jaguar’s back
Jaguar has been in a pickle for a while. Sales have been dwindling – for each Jag sold, six Land Rovers have sauntered out of the showrooms. So yes, a rebrand was probably due, and with the shift to electric-only vehicles looming, the timing made sense. However, the rebrand is a huge leap and dramatic shift in target demographic from the traditional 40–60-year-olds, to a younger, wealthy, design-minded, cash-rich, time-poor audience.
Now, shifting demographics is not necessarily a bad thing, just look at Ford. But such a radical overhaul for a prestigious brand has raised more than a few eyebrows. Prestige is earned in the public eye and is built upon decades of work. This feels a little like throwing the champagne out with the cork.
Let’s talk about the logo. While it’s not terrible, it feels a bit... soft. It doesn't quite capture the power and sophistication. It’s a bit too generic, likened to logos for furniture stores or discount fashion brands. We need something more striking, more iconic – something that roars.
Causing the most discomfort, however, is that fundamentally, Jaguar is a heritage brand. For its admirers, this is something that should be protected. Other than the central inspirational quote from Founder William Lyons of “a copy of nothing”, there has been no attempt to reference any part of Jaguar’s long, rich history. It’s a little… jarring.
But maybe they’re up to something. The brand was in terminal decline; it had to do something big. The buyer persona of middle-aged man in suit is gone and it isn’t coming back. The rebrand has people talking. Who actually cared about Jaguar enough to talk about it before last week? Very few. This has achieved huge engagement, massive column inches. All publicity is good publicity (allegedly).
Jaguar is unveiling a new concept car in a few days and one thing’s for sure, we’re all on tenterhooks.