How often should zoos rebrand themselves?

[Panthera1981]

Hello all!

With the news that ZSL will, once again, go through an extensive rebranding phase this year I wonder how often should a zoo rebrand itself? Are there outside factors? Is it affected by public perception of an institution? Or is it simply money wasted that could be spent elsewhere? Thoughts please!

 

[Jurek7]

Zoos don't need branding at all.

Brand is a marketing concept which serves to differentiate the product among many similar products. Zoos are unique products in their locality. Unless London Zoo competes for visitors with Whipsnade Zoo, Cotswolds, Howletts, Chester etc.? If a zoo wants to advertise itself, its marketers can show a real animal (tiger, gorilla, giraffe etc.) not a brand, possibly with a concept of a tiger, gorilla etc.

An example: the zoo in the capital of the country with most recent immigrants to London has no brand. None. It is simply City Zoological Garden in Warsaw. Nevertheless it is comparatively more popular (60% of visitors in 2013, although Warsaw metro area has 20% of citizens of London), has more animals, participates in more EEPs, and in the last 10 years built more new exhibits. A few years ago some marketing company offered a new brand for free, as a publicity ploy, but the zoo finally chosen none.

 

[Junior Friendly]

Zoos don't need branding at all.

Brand is a marketing concept which serves to differentiate the product among many similar products. Zoos are unique products in their locality. Unless London Zoo competes for visitors with Whipsnade Zoo, Cotswolds, Howletts, Chester etc.? If a zoo wants to advertise itself, its marketers can show a real animal (tiger, gorilla, giraffe etc.) not a brand, possibly with a concept of a tiger, gorilla etc.

An example: the zoo in the capital of the country with most recent immigrants to London has no brand. None. It is simply City Zoological Garden in Warsaw. Nevertheless it is comparatively more popular (60% of visitors in 2013, although Warsaw metro area has 20% of citizens of London), has more animals, participates in more EEPs, and in the last 10 years built more new exhibits. A few years ago some marketing company offered a new brand for free, as a publicity ploy, but the zoo finally chosen none.

I wouldn't have thought London Zoo wished to compete with Whipsnade,

 

[gentle lemur]

I don't think that London Zoo competes with other zoos to a significant extent. However it does compete with other attractions in Central London where there are many tourists through most of the year: visitors have a very wide choice including all the museums and art galleries, the London Eye, Madame Tussaud's and so on, so the Zoo has to maintain a high public profile and to deliver a new attraction each year which refreshes the Zoo's appeal. Hence all the posters, press releases and so on.
In a sense rebranding defeats this object and so it requires extra expenditure: I would assume that it would only be considered if the old branding had become a negative factor for some reason.

Alan

 

[zoomaniac]

I share Jurek7 and gentle lemurs opinions, but allow myself to bring it to a very short summary: It's simply money wasted!

(Begging for money for new animal exhibits, but throwing money out of the window by looking for a new brand ... London Zoos decline is still going on)