In marketing practice, companies may, in certain circumstances, consider changing the image and perception of a product through a rebranding exercise.
Frequently, the main motivations behind such a strategy are to establish relevance in people’s minds, as happens in the case of a revamped product, or else to attempt to change the public opinion resulting from a negative track record.
The key question behind such exercises is usually whether the target audience will accept the rebranding, and the answer to this question will depend in good part on the extent of credibility and trust that the organisation doing the rebranding exercise manages to instil in its public.
The current campaign by the hunting lobby to persuade people to vote in favour of retaining spring hunting is an example of a rebranding exercise in which hunters are either trying to convince the public that their perceptions of hunters are misguided or else that hunters intend to change their image in future.
The rebranding exercise in this case is not just a tweaking of a company logo but a complete overhaul of the lobby’s goals, message and culture in an attempt to gain the approval of the Maltese people to enable the hunters to continue practising their controversial pastime.
The lobby’s track record makes such an exercise an uphill battle. Over the past 20 years, hunting has become associated with a complete disregard for regulations, arrogance, aggression and intolerance. Many would argue that this is not just a question of perception but an opinion based on personal experience.
The lobby has also become increasingly adept at keeping the leaders of the two major political parties on a tight leash. As they have done with their predecessors, they believe they have the power to make Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil sit, beg, roll over and fetch on a whim. One reason that many, including myself, are supporting the Shout campaign is the need to liberate the political parties from such bondage.
Hunters have to acknowledge that successful rebranding moves beyond the superficiality of glossy campaigns
Through their campaign, the hunters are projecting a respect-able image of their activity. Their centre stage is occupied by relatively unfamiliar faces: well-groomed people who are hypothesising that, should the No vote prevail, the rights of other minorities will be placed in jeopardy. I cannot imagine anyone collecting 400 signatures to eliminate fireworks in Malta, let alone 40,000. The same applies to other activities, like fishing.
The hard fact is that many other groups practise their activities with full respect for the rest of society and without impinging on other people’s rights. This is appreciated by society in general and unavoidable minor inconveniences are generally tolerated in the interest of the greater good. The hunters’ track record tells a completely different story and singles them out from other minority groups.
Regaining public confidence takes years – not a few weeks before a referendum. If it is genuine in its intentions, the hunting lobby will have an opportunity to convince the public of its changed character after April 11, irrespective of the outcome.
If spring hunting is retained, will hunters revert to their previous antics or will their conduct reflect the benign image which their campaigners are currently projecting?
If Shout wins, will hunters accept the defeat graciously and respect the majority’s decision, or will they lash out in defiance, risking a further backlash that, in future, may possibly restrict their activity even further?
The main point being made here is that there is a difference between a rebranding exercise and a charade. There are many case studies of rebranding exercises that have backfired because the organisations involved tried to sell a mask as a new face.
If hunters want to build public trust, they have to acknowledge that successful rebranding is part of a methodical process and a commitment to submit to cultural changes that moves beyond the superficiality of glossy campaigns.