As rebrands go, it was temporary. Less than four months after the Philadelphia Museum of Art unveiled its new identity, trustees have announced it’s taking it back. The new name was widely derided as the “PhArt Museum,” the director was fired and the center was left with a $6 million deficit. Many cultural organizations will now think twice before they touch their brand, but the industry lesson that rebranding is dangerous is ill-advised to draw.
The rebuilding of the Philadelphia Museum of Art was not a failure because it was a rebrand. It failed because of the way this change was handled. Without stakeholder alignment or public buy-in—and a name that seemed to wipe out decades of public ownership—it was always going to be difficult.
The sector’s skepticism is understandable, but it actually misses a much bigger risk: that of failing to rebrand in time. If rebranding is handled well, it can support audience growth and help establishments compete in a crowded entertainment market.
London’s Tate Modern in 2000 is an example; created a new genre that not only changed the fortunes of the gallery but also changed the public understanding of what a gallery could be. We can look more recently to the successful reprints at the Guggenheim and Brooklyn Museums, which are part of broader efforts to reach new audiences. Equally, if cultural institutions do not change their messages or their identities, they are in danger of slipping inexplicably into irrelevance.
Rather than pausing product development forever, the industry will do better to understand what went wrong and how to avoid repeating it.
What happened in Philadelphia
Despite the setback, it is worth noting that much of the work itself had real merit. It brought power, and the power to engage a younger audience. It was primarily the name change from the Philadelphia Museum of Art to the Philadelphia Art Museum that was met with this challenge. Apart from renaming, most of the extensive identification system is always used. It wasn’t a complete failure, but the reaction treated it as one.
Other recent cultural rebrands, including Getty’s, have received mixed reviews without being industry-wide cautionary tales. What set Philadelphia apart was less the quality of the work than a combination of name changes, director firings and shortages.
That said, it’s been a big change, and it doesn’t seem to support the kind of process needed to bring stakeholders together. Compromising on certain things to create a broader purchase would have been a good trade-off. The name change, in particular, may not have been necessary.
Efforts to shorten or rename institutions rarely succeed without strong buy-in. In 2017, the National Gallery of Ireland adopted the acronym “I AM” as part of a rebrand, but it was heavily criticized and did not gain traction, and the institution eventually returned to using its full name in practice.
Doubt can be just as dangerous
The quick, highly inappropriate abandonment of this work, and the result of the enthusiasm to hit the brakes on another reconstruction project, highlight some of the skepticism that the cultural sector has about the product. Many believe that institutional ownership should be reduced, and should serve as a blank canvas for the work itself.
However, before the art on the wall can speak, the institution must speak: it must grab people’s attention and bring them in the door. Today, museums compete in a very wide market, against cinemas, broadcasting platforms, restaurants and even the beach. For a long time, many worked from the ivory tower, but that is no longer an option.
A brand sets expectations, communicates information, differentiates an institution from other options and builds relationships that bring people back. Museums can be interesting, educational and eye-opening places of communication, but they have to communicate that. Standing still is not the safe option it seems. If the current identity is holding the organization back, rebranding—done with the right process and investment—can be more dangerous than doing nothing.
What does it look like to get the rebrand right
A rebrand can be handled in very different ways. The Guggenheim’s 2024 renewal of ownership, for example, did not attempt to reinvent the institution. Instead, it used its existing visual language—geometric typography, the visual heritage of architecture—and clarified it. The tone of voice was deliberately inclusive, connecting its global group of muses, and it felt like an evolution. By 2025, the Guggenheim 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 around a bespoke brand and a clear, modern visual language. Launched before it reopened, the identity helped build momentum, doubling the number of visitors to around 2.5 million within a year, which it has maintained.
Creative ambition often pushes for dramatic change. In most cases, the most effective solution lies somewhere between restructuring and doing nothing at all.
Making a case for innovation
In addition, the most important work is done before any design begins. Internal teams and employees across the organization, as well as board members and sponsors, need to be heard. This requires listening and asking the right questions. This can take some time. Member surveys are often useful, and when budgets allow, broad public participation can help identify the audiences that institutions are trying to reach. As the strategy evolves in design, a small group of decision makers must prepare the way. Before anything can be finalized, it must be returned to internal stakeholders. It is important to build buy-in and enthusiasm before the work is done by the public.
Working at the San Diego Adoption 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 through radical change have stalled, in part because the stakeholders did not understand each other.
Our solution ended up being more expansive: changing the name to Children’s Museum of Discovery (CMoD) and refining the identity rather than changing it outright. It allowed the organization to move forward without forcing a change that key stakeholders were not ready to support.
The importance of clarity of purpose
Organizations must be able to say what is not working and why change is needed. Without agreement on the problem, there can never be agreement on the solution. Alignment comes through dialogue, and ultimately requires leadership. This is not just a marketing exercise. It needs to be led at the senior director/CEO level, with clear accountability. The agency works as a partner in that process: alongside the creative work, they present real problems and build understanding with everyone.
When a cultural institution gets its brand wrong, the impact is huge: it affects trust, leadership stability, relationships with patrons and audiences and even the numbers that come through the door. But the answer should not be to avoid change altogether. Standing still and failing to address problems with the product can be even more dangerous.
Instead, the lesson from Philadelphia is that change needs to be carefully managed, strategic, supported by stakeholders and clearly understood before it is made public.
More in museums
