Go Back

What's the real reason behind Shell's New Zealand rebrand?

Posted by: James Bickford on Monday, May 23 2011 11:21 AM

Rebranding 220 Shell service stations in New Zealand will cost NZ $35 million. But a rebrand means its owners, Greenstone Energy, will save around NZ $7 million a year in royalty fees.

While the New Zealand-owned Greenstone claims 17,000 New Zealanders were surveyed about the change, I am unsure to what they were actually asked. In reality, this seems to be a case of an investment business deciding to cold shoulder Shell’s royalty fee, for long term financial gain. Meanwhile, they get to party wrap a new look for Kiwi’s to love and belong to.... yeah, right!

According to CEO Mike Bennett, when ditching a global heritage brand, he said, "We arrived at Z because it's short, sharp and to the point. It reflects our national identity and our commitment to New Zealand. To us, Z is all about New Zealand."

Apparently "Z" was chosen as it is the last letter of the alphabet and first letter of the last word in New Zealand. But there's more! The logo also represents the infinity symbol recognizing the millions of car journeys Kiwis take each year. According to "Z" we actually never get out of our cars. We drive them forever.

But beyond this nice and simple description of a logo, the real story behind this new Kiwi brand appears to be in the delicious cupcakes and coffee that "Z" will serve and the 200 new employees to provide forecourt service during the day. Does this sound familiar? At my local Shell, forecourt staff offer to fill my car and I can get a great cupcake and coffee at BP’s Wild Bean Cafe.

In my opinion, this is not a brand but an ABC kindergarten logo. A logo slapped up with the thought that selling Kiwi to Kiwi’s will fix everything. The rest of the world may recognize it as a logo that looks interestingly rather familiar. A piece of Astra Zeneca's logo, perhaps?

This is not a rebrand but an investment company’s indulgence. The bottom line is that New Zealand has lost a heritage service brand that helped build this nation and has replaced it with a rather cheap and painfully bad logo of an independent petrol station — a logo that belongs at the bottom of the world.




Related Posts


Will Brands' Popularity Take a Hit Over Taxes?
News of The World No More: Why brands need higher standards than their consumers
The Power of Social Media Over football(ers)

Comments  (1)


  • Gary Ludwig

    Wow. That sounded unreasonably bitter and petty coming from a branding professional. Any chance you lost the pitch on this one? The Z Energy rationale is certainly no less credible than others I've heard—including some from my time at Interbrand. How unusual is it really for a national agency that invests public money in a business asset to rebrand it so as to symbolize their view of the overall, long-term investment and intent? How odd is it for that same country to want to start building its own brands that are recognizable at home and abroad rather than relying on foreign-based brands? You make it sound like there is no room for anything but "global heritage brands" (even if that heritage is Dutch). And that, of course, is ridiculous. Do I like the logo? No. Should anyone care? No. Will it be the death of the brand? Hardly. Is it any more "ABC kindergarten" than Astra Zeneca? Well, or course. One was designed by Interbrand, the other not. You may have access to more information than is publicly available, but your dismissal of this as nothing more than "indulgence" doesn't align with anything I've found in the NZ business press. All in all, this sounds a lot less like a critical, professional analysis than it does sour grapes. Get over it. You can't win 'em all.


Post a comment!

  1.