Marketers and business leaders operate in a paradox. They are tasked with driving engagement and maintaining relevance, yet their deep immersion in the brand, strategy, and campaigns can lead to a sense of fatigue long before their audience experiences the same.

This phenomenon - often described as internal wear-out - can be deceptive. Familiarity breeds discontent within organisations, prompting an instinctive desire to refresh, reposition, or rebrand. Yet, not all change is progress, and premature change can do more harm than good. So, before making a fundamental shift, the critical question is: Is this an essential evolution, or are we simply restless?

The Boredom Trap: When Internal Perception Clouds Judgment

The issue isn’t unique to any one company. It is a structural challenge inherent to marketing and brand management.

Marketers and leadership teams interact with their brand and messaging at a level of intensity their audience never will. Internal teams see every campaign, scrutinise every execution, and iterate endlessly on strategic direction. Over time, what was once compelling begins to feel predictable.

Mark Ritson has frequently criticised this tendency, highlighting that “wear-out occurs more in the marketer than the market.” His argument is that brands often abandon effective strategies long before they reach peak impact with consumers. A campaign, brand identity, or positioning that seems overused internally may still be in its early stages of embedding externally.

This is why market leaders like Nike, Apple, and McDonald’s have remained remarkably consistent, resisting the impulse to ‘refresh’ core brand assets simply because of internal fatigue.

Before contemplating change, leaders must ask:

• Is there external evidence that customers are disengaging, or is this simply internal overexposure?

• Are competitors outperforming us in ways that genuinely threaten our market position?

• Would change strengthen our strategic direction, or is it an attempt to create momentum where none is needed?

  
  

When Change is Justified

This is not to suggest that change is inherently negative. Markets shift, customer expectations evolve, and competitive dynamics demand adaptation. The challenge is distinguishing between necessary evolution and reactive reinvention.

Some indicators that a shift is warranted:

• Declining performance metrics - If key brand and marketing KPIs (awareness, conversion, engagement) are in sustained decline, the strategy may no longer be resonating.

• Competitive disadvantage - If competitors have evolved in ways that make your positioning or marketing strategy feel outdated, inertia is a risk.

• Brand misalignment - If the business has evolved - new services, expanded offerings, or a refined audience focus - but the brand and marketing remain static, there is a disconnect that must be addressed.

• Structural industry change - In categories undergoing rapid disruption, staying still is rarely an option. Adaptation is a necessity.

  
  

The key differentiator here is that these are external factors - market-driven indicators that demand response. This is distinct from internal drivers of change, which often stem from creative fatigue or impatience rather than strategic necessity.

The Cost of Unnecessary Change

A miscalculated change initiative - whether a full-scale rebrand, repositioning, or new campaign direction - introduces risk. Even well-intentioned changes can create unintended consequences:

• Loss of brand equity - Recognition, trust, and familiarity take years to build. A premature shift forces customers to re-establish their understanding of the brand.

• Customer confusion - A deviation in positioning or identity without a compelling external rationale can dilute differentiation and weaken market perception.

• Resource misallocation - Investing in change without clear business justification diverts resources from initiatives that could drive more meaningful impact.

  
  

We have seen high-profile failures in this space - Gap’s failed logo redesign in 2010 remains a cautionary tale. The shift was met with such backlash that the company reverted to its previous identity within a week. Notably, there was no external demand for change - only an internal belief that the brand needed a refresh.

If a change does not demonstrably strengthen strategic positioning or audience engagement, it is likely unnecessary.

A Framework for Decision-Making

So how can leaders determine whether change is a strategic imperative or simply an internal itch for something different? A structured approach is necessary. This five-point Change Evaluation Framework provides a methodology for assessing whether evolution is required:

1️⃣ The Relevance Test - Has the market moved on?

If the competitive landscape or consumer expectations have shifted, maintaining the status quo could be a liability.

2️⃣ The Performance Test - Is there measurable evidence of decline?

Are there concrete data points - falling engagement, sales, or brand equity scores - that indicate the need for intervention?

3️⃣ The Alignment Test - Does the brand still reflect the business?

If the company has evolved but the brand positioning has remained static, misalignment can create a disconnect in perception.

4️⃣ The Consistency Test - Would this change strengthen or dilute recognition?

Evolution should build upon existing equity, not dismantle it. Change for the sake of change risks destabilising long-term brand perception.

5️⃣ The Impact Test - Will this change drive meaningful business results?

A shift should be justified by tangible upside - whether in market positioning, customer acquisition, or revenue growth.

If multiple criteria are met, change is likely justified. If not, the risk of unnecessary disruption outweighs the potential benefits.

Strategic Evolution vs. Reactive Change

Change does not have to be wholesale reinvention. Often, the most effective strategies involve incremental evolution rather than complete transformation.

• Messaging refinement - Adjusting positioning or brand narrative for clarity, without overhauling identity.

• Visual evolution - Refreshing elements of brand design to maintain modernity while preserving recognisability.

• Marketing recalibration - Shifting tactics or channels to align with consumer behaviour rather than abandoning proven approaches.

This is where market leaders excel. They evolve strategically, not reactively.