This was the old thinking if you changed your logo: make a big splash. The reasoning is sound. Use the redesign as a marketing opportunity—a chance to introduce audiences to the sexy new mark and control the story. "Big splash" and "control" were the benefits of this approach.
Now, social media has taken "big splash" to a whole new scale while making "control" a lot harder to achieve. In the last month or so, we've launched two new identities, one for Marylhurst University and the other for Woodland Park Zoo (with help from Betty White). Both have big groups of engaged audiences who are active on social media. While the challenge was the same—introduce audiences to the new identities—the organizations used different approaches to their respective unveilings. Marylhurst University debuted the new mark at well-attended on-campus events and on Facebook as part of a comprehensive brand launch. Woodland Park Zoo unveiled the new mark—without a specific announcement—at Thrive, the Zoo's fund-raising event, and has so far left Facebook out of it. Two very different approaches. And there are pros and cons to each. Here's a high-level overview of these different approaches.
Approach: "Hard" Launch, inclusive of social media.
Pros:
— Transparency. Lets audiences understand exactly what's happening and why.
— Momentum. Builds excitement and signals change.
— Definitive. Creates a pivot point between the past and the future.
Cons:
— Criticism. The reaction to new identities is—almost always—universally negative. See the comments on the Starbucks page for that company's new logo. (Howard Schultz is widely regarded as a marketing genius, but that didn't stop the first commenter from calling him a "bonehead." That's exactly the the kind of illogical, emotional response new identities engender.) This does not mean they aren't great identities. What it means is that we're hardwired to dislike something new that replaces something we're already familiar with. (But fast forward just a few weeks, and most all the dislike is gone.)
Approach: "Soft" Launch, without social media.
Pros:
— No Criticism (or, at least, less criticism). By not overtly calling attention to the new design, the mark is introduced in context, without inviting any debate about whether it's liked or disliked. At its core, social media asks us to "like" or "dislike" something—either by saying so explicitly, or commenting on something shared. If the coming-out party for a new identity doesn't include social media, the platform for this "like" or "dislike" conversation is greatly reduced. But that comes at a cost . . .
Cons:
— No Conversation. While weathering an initial storm of criticism (see: The Gap) can be hard on any organization, most case studies show that this criticism is temporary and, given a chance, new identities eventually win people over. Don't believe me? See any redesigned logo for a professional sports team. Did the new logo initially freak fans out? Almost always. Did people stop coming to the ballpark or, even more tellingly, stop buying merchandise with the logo on it? Not a chance. Besides, criticism is a form of engagement, and engagement is what everyone wants for their brand. In Marylhurst's case, some early negative feedback by students even led to bigger discussions about governance, which in turn inspired the revamping of student government. Change inspires change. And that is healthy.
Both approaches are effective, and it's likely one is more-suited to your organization. It's just important to know the benefits—and costs—of each.