What makes a brand a brand?

Have you ever wondered what makes a brand a brand? What sets it apart from the rest?

This question must be echoing in the minds of the people at the traditional English brand Jaguar. Since deciding to reinvent the brand, the automaker has been on a rollercoaster ride comparable only to the crisis it experienced before its acquisition by Ford.

For those unfamiliar, the term branding comes from the Nordic word brandr, meaning to burn. Branding originates from the habit of animal breeders, especially cattle, of burning the animals' hides with the owner's coat of arms. It's not difficult to understand the need for this.

In the modern world, branding has become a science, seeking to create a set of strategies to ensure immediate recognition of a given line of products/services, generating empathy within the defined target audience. I've been both generic and specific because I'm not defining either the segment or the market. The pillars of branding are recognition and empathy for the target audience, because every brand presupposes a positioning.

In a recent bold move by Jaguar, the company decided to redefine not only its brand identity but also its products and target audience. For those unfamiliar, Jaguar is a brand that prides itself on its English, aristocratic, and luxurious origins. Its target audience was middle-aged men and women seeking luxury, prestige, and sophistication. The redesign included a wide range of features, from abandoning all capital letters in favor of a mixed-use font, to changing the logo's font, and removing the leaping Jaguar that gave the brand its name (remember, the founder could have used a Lion, since his surname was Lions).

As if this shake-up of the brand identity weren't enough, the company went further: it decided to target a new audience: younger, less traditional, less aristocratic, and this redirection extended to the product. In the proposed new line, the car abandons all its DNA and embarks on a new path, both in terms of propulsion (from combustion to electricity) and in the vehicles' design and features. The campaign's tagline makes it clear: copy nothing.

The question is: so, did it work? Because I could spend hours rambling about whether I like the campaign or not, whether I like the proposal or not, but what matters is knowing whether it worked or not. Because it wasn't necessarily the target audience, and it isn't necessarily the target audience now. When analyzing any action or positioning, we must always remember that it might not be for our specific needs.

The results are still inconclusive for numerous reasons. The most important is the lack of stock of both previous and new models. The boldness of the action was not only in breaking with a 90-year history (since 1935), but in discontinuing all existing models in favor of new ones that weren't fully ready. In other words, 2,000 monthly sales were given up for X number of sales whose timing is unknown. What we generally read is criticism and comments that the strategy failed, to the point of leading to the CEO's resignation.

As an automotive enthusiast, I was struck by the lack of details about what we should expect from these new vehicles. After all, this isn't a new family of products within the brand: it's an entire new brand supported by a single vehicle, whether it's a crossover, coupe, sports car, or all of the above. And it's not even clear what they'll deliver. This is the first time I've seen an automotive brand not talk about the vehicle's performance, but only about its color and innovative approach.

Anyway, I believe I can predict what will happen, and if I'm wrong, I'll speak out in the future. Is it possible for the new brand to gain followers? Yes. Was the buzz surrounding a brand that had been on the back burner significant and extend beyond the automotive segment? Yes. Was the curiosity generated significant? Yes, that too. Will it work? I don't believe it.

And why don't I believe it? I'll try to explain succinctly. I even understand why the new Jaguar doesn't want to address vehicle performance in the presentation, as strange as it may seem. The reason is the electric cars on the market, especially Chinese ones. Consider a performance item: the record holders for 0-100 km/h acceleration, horsepower, top speed, etc., are two brands, Bugatti and Koenissegg, the only combustion-powered vehicles (with or without electric assistance) that rival electric vehicles, most of which are Chinese. In other words, if the motto is Go Big or Go Home, it's best to leave these items alone.

So, let's talk about design, which is a crucial element in the segment. Aside from looking like Barbie and Ken cars, due to the pink and blue options, the biggest problem with the new Jaguar is that the design is love-it-or-hate-it, no compromise. The brand's choice was to completely break away from the norm, and this generates this kind of reaction, whether favorable or unfavorable. In my opinion, the design is bad because it's not innovative in any way: nothing offered is unique or unthinkable. In the 1950s and 1960s, the American industry, in concept models, was much more innovative than Jaguar is now.

Now, let's look beyond the love-it-or-hate-it aspect and get to the real issues. Jaguar, in its history, was responsible for the creation of the vehicle that is considered by many automotive experts to be the most beautiful ever launched: the E-Type. You may not fall in love with the E-Type (even today, 64 years after its launch), it's still not only beautiful but impossible to ignore. Even if you're not enamored with it, you recognize the virtues of its design. So, there's no way to ignore this tradition, especially since the brand hasn't just made a stunningly beautiful vehicle, but also some admirable vehicles with a long history. Turning your back on this DNA is, to say the least, frightening.

But there's more. Besides being beautiful, the E-Type had a very clear niche: sports cars with performance beyond the ordinary. And this wasn't just a promise, as the brand won championships in the major categories of the time, especially Le Mans. In other words, its DNA has always been racing, popularizing the sporty green that generally accompanied the brand's most powerful models.

Well, now we can come to a final conclusion. The brand's history, despite several missteps like the sale to Ford, is filled with great achievements: the most beautiful car, breathtaking performance, a color that became a symbol of the brand (and a category), and a concept that has survived numerous mistakes. The brand was an icon of sportiness, driving pleasure, and performance, and the icing on the cake was the roar of its engines, especially the V8s, celebrated by aficionados.

It abandoned the green color, the logo, the typography, the icon, the noise, the performance, and the charm (or phlegm, in the case of an English brand) for a dubious rhetoric and combination. Will it work? I doubt it. By targeting a new audience, the brand didn't reach anyone, especially since the persona presented in the ads isn't the typical car enthusiast, but rather a fashion enthusiast.

I don't think it was bold: it was ignorance and desperation. In a world increasingly dominated by Chinese, who can create a new global brand in months, Jaguar is like a dolphin: it emerged, made a splash, and will sink. If Tata, the brand's current owner, does nothing, we'll find the new Jaguars in the same graveyard as Edsel, Saturn, and other oddities created over time.

Jaguar didn't need to copy anyone: it had the only model in its history that needed to be considered in its repositioning. One that was copied, but never equaled. One that had pedigree and recognition. Instead, it chose to become a meme. Write it down: one Jaguar and it disappeared.