As rebranding goes, this was a short-lived process. Less than four months after the Philadelphia Museum of Art unveiled its new identity, trustees announced it would step back from it. The new name was widely derided as the “PhArt Museum,” the director was fired and the institution was left with a $6 million deficit. Many cultural organizations will now think twice before touching their own brand, but the lesson for the sector that rebranding is dangerous is the wrong lesson to learn.
The rebranding of the Philadelphia Museum of Art did not fail because it was a rebranding. He failed because of how he handled change. Without stakeholder alignment or community buy-in — and with a name that seemed to erase a decades-old civic identity overnight — the company was always going to struggle.
The sector’s hesitation is understandable, but in reality it ignores a much greater risk: failure to rebrand at the right moment. When handled well, rebranding can support audience growth and help organizations compete in an increasingly crowded entertainment market.
The Tate Modern in London in 2000 is the perfect model. She undertook a rebranding exercise that not only changed the fair’s fortunes, but also reshaped the public’s understanding of what the fair could be. We can look recently to the successful rebrandings at the Guggenheim and Brooklyn museums, which form part of broader efforts to reach new audiences. Likewise, if cultural institutions do not develop their messages or identity, they risk slipping imperceptibly into irrelevance.
Rather than pausing brand development indefinitely, the industry would do well to understand what mistakes have already been made and how to avoid repeating them.
What happened in Philadelphia?
Despite the backlash, it’s worth noting that much of the work itself had real merit. It brought energy, with the potential to engage younger audiences. It was the name change from the Philadelphia Museum of Art to the Philadelphia Museum of Art that was primarily met with derision. Far from retracting the name, much of the broader identity program remains in use. It wasn’t a complete failure, but the reaction treated it as a failure.
Other recent cultural brands, including Getty, have received mixed reviews without becoming sector-wide cautionary tales. What sets Philadelphia apart is the quality of the work, less the combination of a name change, director firing, and impotence.
However, it was a major shift, and it did not appear to be supported by the kind of process needed to bring stakeholders on board. Compromising on some elements in order to build broader support would have been a worthwhile trade-off. A name change, in particular, may not have been necessary.
Attempts to shorten or reformulate institutional names are rarely successful without strong advocacy. In 2017, the National Gallery of Ireland adopted the abbreviation “NGI” as part of its rebranding, but it was widely criticized and never gained any traction, and the institution eventually returned to full use of its name in practice.
Hesitation can be just as dangerous
The rapid and largely undeserved condemnation of this work, and the resulting enthusiasm to curb other rebranding acts, highlights a particular hesitation in the cultural sector towards the brand. Many believe that the corporate identity should take a backseat and should serve as a blank canvas for the work itself.
However, before the art on the walls can speak, the organization must speak: it must grab people’s attention and get you through the door. Today, museums compete in a much broader market, against movie theaters, streaming platforms, restaurants, and even the beach. For a long time, many of them operated from ivory towers, but that is no longer an option.
Branding sets expectations, communicates experience, differentiates an organization from other options, and builds a relationship that brings people back. Museums can be social places that are entertaining, informative and eye-catching, but they must communicate this. It seems that standing still is not the safest option. If an organization’s current identity is holding you back, rebranding—implemented with the right process and investment—can actually be less risky than doing nothing.
What does getting the branding look like right?
Rebranding can be approached in very different ways. For example, the Guggenheim Museum’s 2024 identity refresh did not attempt to reinvent the institution. Instead, she drew on her existing visual language – geometric typography, its distinctive architectural heritage – and articulated it. The tone of voice was deliberately inclusive, connecting its global collection of museums, and it felt like an evolution. In 2025, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao was among the most visited museums in the world, attracting 1.3 million visitors.
In 2013, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam launched a renewed brand identity, built on a custom typeface and a sharper, more modern visual language. The identity, introduced ahead of its reopening, helped build momentum, with visitor numbers doubling to nearly 2.5 million within a year, which it has maintained ever since.
Creative ambition often drives dramatic transformation. In many cases, the most effective solution lies somewhere between a comprehensive overhaul and doing nothing at all.
Make the case for rebranding
Furthermore, the most important work happens before any design begins. Internal teams and employees across the organization, as well as board members and donors, need to be heard. This requires listening and asking the right questions. This may take time. Member surveys are often valuable, and where budget allows, broader community engagement can help identify the audiences organizations are trying to reach. As the strategy takes shape in design, a smaller group of decision makers must refine the direction. Before anything is finalized, it needs to be brought back to internal stakeholders. It is important to build support and enthusiasm before publishing the work.
While working at the San Diego Children’s Exploration Museum, we found that it faced practical challenges: a confusing name—it didn’t actually exist in San Diego—and an identity that didn’t work well in digital environments. Previous attempts by others to solve this problem through more radical change have faltered, in part because of a lack of stakeholder consensus.
Our final solution was more incremental: adjust the name to fit Children’s Museum of Discovery (CMoD) and then enhance the identity rather than replace it completely. It allowed the organization to move forward without forcing change that key stakeholders were not willing to support.
The importance of clarity of purpose
Organizations must be able to articulate what is not working and why change is necessary. Without agreement on the problem, there will be no agreement on the solution. Consensus comes through conversation, and ultimately requires leadership. This is not just a marketing exercise. It must be led at the CEO/CEO level, with clear accountability. The agency acts as a partner in this process: alongside creative work, it highlights real issues and builds consensus with everyone.
When a cultural institution gets its brand wrong, the impact is wide-ranging: it affects trust, the stability of leadership, relationships with donors and audiences, and even the numbers that come through the door. But the response should not be to avoid change altogether. Standing still and failing to address issues with the brand can pose a greater risk.
Instead, the lesson from Philadelphia is that change needs to be handled carefully, embedded in strategy, supported by stakeholders, and clearly understood before it is made public.
More in museums
