I can't help but suspect that Trevor Noah was a part a whole act to get South Africans to notice Cell C. Besides his role as the new Cell C brand ambassador, or rather Customer Experience Officer, he was the driving force through his stand up comedy, in his rantings of cellular phone operators in South Africa.
Cell C was apologetic. Noah was asked to apologise too. But this all seems too well set out. Cell C was able to perfectly time their rebranding with bringing on board as Noah their spokesperson. No doubt, he is quite brand to be associated with. What, with Daywalker and hosting the Nando's Comedy Festival last month, he is on a media machine of greatness. You can now find him on your television screens, over the radio, on billboads all over the city (and airport), Facebook, Twitter....He is EVERYWHERE!
Not that I mind. Quite a looker, he is.
I found myself in Dion Wired this afternoon to buy myself a new Wii game, and at the exit I was told I could take as many Cell C starter packs as I pleased. Come again?! Out with Cell C's old branding and in with the new. Even on a Saturday morning, workers busying themselves on Rivonia Road with the "copyright" looking logo.
A hefty amount must have been forked out for Cell C to relish in so much attention. I hope that all boils positively in their financial statements.
See also: Why Cell C's lastest ad is a #brandfail
I saw the new advert today - all this was planned, i come from an advertising background ... to shoot such an advert you need weeks of preparations [not that it cant be done in two weeks] - but the gap between Cell C's apology and the flight of the advert is very suspect. So yah all this was planned ... what i like is that they took a different route to MTN and Vodacom - interms of re-launching their brand.
… and like that cell c has re-branded itself into obscurity.
… a copyright symbol as your 'brand id'? really?
i dont think that it was good idea for cell c to change their color red to black - as far as i know even when you re-brand you dont touch the logo and the colour of the of the brand.
@ George, you can change the colours, the logo, entlek almost everything... take this for a example : http://www.thebrandunion.co.za/OurWork/CaseStudy/172/CorporateIdentity and compare it with this one : http://8916.co.za/2010/08/16/kulula/
@Lebogang you are damn right … a copyright symbol as your 'brand id'? is obscurity.
This is what you get when you employ designers that will do anything for Reputation of having Big corporates in their portfolio
@Karabo - You can change the colours and logo - but that doesnt make it a good idea. Kulula still played around the same colours and im sure most people didint even pick that up. Just imagine if kulula changed their colour brown? [people will notice] Kulula's change is not drastic, but its evolving.
Such a massive rebranding is something that should be done over time. A year or two or even three, like Australian Airways.
@Karabo, I totally agree, these designers were on a "creative wank". The brand was not really considered. Cell C was a "Every-Man" archetype and the colour black with the copyright logo makes it feel corporate and inaccessible.
Maybe they have a long term plan but I'm afraid they've made too major a change especially when summer is around the corner. We all know that this is the season for cellphone networks...
Big ups to them for taking a risk... but was it calculated...
Cell C and Trevor the jokes man......CEO, i am always open minded when it comes to these issues of rebranding, for a mere fact that at most times, what the brand say, its just some intelligent debate about what it all means, the real deal is can they make their money, especially from millions of gullible South Africans who hardly give a flying efck about logos and boardroom politics and brand meanings.
Unfortunately, comrades, the Cell C logo has been provisionally rejected. I understand the bold step for Cell C to be using the copright symbol but honestly, I was wondering how it would be accepted. So Loymad, I think it was NOT calculated. They rushed into it all. I believe that they weren't patient and were being very ambitious. They're obscurity has now caught up with them! And its embarrassing to have your logo rejected after unveiling it to the world, and in a very dramatic, Trevor Noah way.
Check out the article on ITWeb: http://itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35976:cell-c-logo-rejected
I knew this was a rushed job, it looked like it was rushed - the logo looks like a first draft. I still stand they should've changed the logo and black is not a good colour for a logo.