I don't know about you, but I don't really understand why a brand would do this - after taking years to establish itself and its name, only to change it, but whatever, I guess we'll get used to it. I still think that Collection 2000 rolls off the tongue a bit better, Collection just feels a bit too abrupt to me.
What do you think?
This post originated at www.thebeautyscoop.co.uk
I'm intereted to see what they do with their rebrand but I think people will continue to call it Collection 2000.
ReplyDeleteReally want to see what they do but i think i will always call it collection 2000....its a habit!
ReplyDeleteBeautiful Dreams
Maybe they think the ´2000´part makes the brand sound a bit old-fashioned, whereas 25 years ago it must´ve sounded futuristic. They should change it to Collection 3000, then they won´t have to rebrand again for a very long time! I think also they´re trying to make the the brand sound a bit more upmarket, now that MUA has taken the spot for super-cheap cosmetics as Superdrug. Collection 2000 products have improved so much recently. The matte lip cremes are briliant.
ReplyDeleteCherry & Carys - Me too, I do like the name Collection as the 2000 bit has been and gone (assuming it was based on the year 2000), but I am sure that I will continue to say that, for quite some time at least. x
ReplyDeleteNicola - Very true, I do appreciate that it sounds weird, since 2000 has been and gone. Collection 3000 would be quite easy to get used to as it has the same feel whilst rolling off the tongue. I also agree about MUA now being the super-cheap make-up line these days. I still remember the days of shopping for Constance Carroll and Collection 2000 make-up with my pocket money though haha. x
Collection is so generic???? Why change something that works? Rebrand to generic?
ReplyDeletei never got the 2000 bit but it sounds better like that! most people are still going to say the 2000 bit though beacsuse it sounds better and we gave got ued to it. 25 years so change it now?!
ReplyDelete