Timeline of the Twitter Rebrand:
4 June: Twitter announces they're limiting views.
6 June: Competitor Meta launches its version of Twitter - Threads and grows to 100M in 5 days.
23 June: Elon Musk runs a quick competition to find an X he likes so it can be sent live the next day.
24 June: Twitter rebrands to X.
It's messy. Confusing even, but it does have a compelling story. We all want to see how this pans out.
Where does the X rebrand stand in 2026?
It has been nearly three years since Twitter rebranded to X in July 2023. The dust has settled, but the brand confusion has not entirely gone away. People still say "tweeting" and "Twitter" in everyday conversation, and the phrase "post on X" still feels awkward to most users.
From a brand strategy perspective, the rebrand remains a cautionary tale about speed over substance. The core lesson has not changed: rebranding without a clear strategy, customer research and a phased rollout creates confusion that takes years to undo. If X had taken six months to plan the transition rather than six days, they would be in a very different position today.
For any business considering a rebrand, the X story reinforces one thing: strategy comes first. Always. If you are thinking about a rebrand and want to make sure you get it right, start with a brand audit to understand what actually needs changing before you change anything.
Why Twitter Rebranded
Rebranding overnight with a crowdsourced logo is like giving a learner driver the keys to a Ferrari. Here's why they made the bold move.
Twitter limited the views to halt AI scraping its data. But that felt like an excuse to increase prices and make money. Something they haven't been doing.
People left the platform as they didn't want to pay for access and that snazzy blue tick. Frustration kicks in.
Twitter needs to determine why people use the platform before raising costs. People were there for information. Journalists used it to discover new stories and keep updated with events. They came away with knowledge.
When access became restricted (in a cost-of-living crisis), people boycotted the service to spend time elsewhere. Something here stinks, stinks worse than walking past a Subway – learn more about Scent Marketing – how to differentiate your brand.
Time spent elsewhere means less time watching adverts on the Twitter platform, so ads were moved elsewhere. Advertisers are looking for ROI; to do that, they need eyeballs. Eyeballs lead to clicks. Clicks = purchases = ROI.
On the flip side of this backlash, it did create a heap of PR. The problem was it was generally damaging, but brand awareness grew.
With a bit of a strategy and a vision, this could have gone down a different route and been seen as the first step towards Twitter reinvigorating itself. It could have been seen that they were limiting the views to give committed users extras, but even then, this is a bit of a shady tactic. But arguably, business models change.
My biggest stumbling block for this first part is the acronym T=R+D.
How to Build Audience Trust
To build trust (T) with the audience, you need reliability (R) (or consistency) and new ways to delight (D), invigorate, and get them talking about you to all their friends. Brands need superfans to rave about how awesome they are.
If you alienate your customers and ignore their feelings, you are gonna start p*ssing people off. There's a lack of a brand promise, which is hurting them. If they had something, anything, close to what a brand like McDonald's had, a simple, deliverable product that didn't alter every single day, they would begin building trust.
I'm not gonna get into Threads, but for 100M+ users, it was a delightful experience; sign up, add people you already know and start posting unhinged thoughts. There's no DM's, no ads, no spam. A refreshing experience that will probably change in the future.
From a marketing perspective, Threads nailed it. A lot of user-generated content (UGC), hype, and another platform that signups were pushed from (Instagram). They didn't have to try too hard to capture those first 100m subscribers.
We're a couple years into Threads, and engagement and excitement have died back, but Twitter's problems continue.
Because of the continued dissatisfaction, LinkedIn has seen 8.6% growth in the last year, amassing 70m new users, with many more actively shifting their focus to LinkedIn.
The following section is where the juice of this article lies.
We do know Musk's Twitter vision. To be an "everything" app called X. Where users can communicate, shop, consume entertainment and more.
But it's hard to say if they have strategically planned all these decisions.
Rebrands are huge strategic decisions to shift perceptions, rekindle feelings and build trust. However, the continued bad press surrounding X/Twitter is making it difficult to build trust with users and, most importantly, advertisers. An article on 2 Dec 2023 suggested that some of Musk's profane outbursts and endorsement of anti-Semitic tweets are forcing advertisers like Apple, Disney and IBM to withhold ad spend.
Rebranding Twitter to X
Where to begin?
I start every project with a brand audit. This gives us a clear understanding of where we are and where we want to go. It also looks at verbal, visual, competitor, and behavioural signals.
And this is where it takes a turn. Here's where X was failing. In my opinion, they didn't do enough market research to get an accurate representation of how they were perceived. But I will admit we need X's input to corroborate this if it is accurate.
Visually. Twitter is Larry the Bird. That blue bird is everywhere and reportedly the 16th most recognisable brand in the world.
Verbally. A high percentage of the global population understands what a tweet is. It's just part of our everyday language. But it's been losing ground (like many social media platforms).
Competitor. There's lots of social media platforms all vying for attention. It's a tough market, but they are well-placed among the top platforms. Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
Behaviour. Erratic, reactionary.
Visually and verbally, Twitter was strong. Competition is intense, but a distinctive vision of where they want to go is there.
But behaviourally and culturally, we have a mahoosive problem. Pre-Musk, there were 7,500 employees; Post, apparently, there are around 1000 left.
———————————
Here's where they are now that they have rebranded.
Visually. X are a little bit all over the place. The X logo was at the masthead of the website for a while. But the App icon was the original bird for a few months. The colour palette was familiar, which was a good thing; 80% of brand recognition comes from a strong colour palette. But then they all went in on black and white. Which is pretty ordinary. You could also jump on the old Twitter website and download the old birdy icons for your website/marketing.
Side note: Because people use the Twitter logo on their websites, a lot of it is still in the footers and headers of websites that aren't updated regularly.
X carries so many connotations. It's unlimited creativity, X rated, X = No. It's hard to see an emotive connection to the letter X. Unless you're looking at it as a representation of a kiss. Then Millennials and Gen Z will surely find it a little creepy.
Verbally. There's talk of reframing a tweet to an x. And it's too early to tell how X will start using it in a tone of voice.
Competition. Threads is going strong, but in theory, the vision of being an everything app will start setting them apart.
Behaviour. Crowdsourcing a logo isn't a brand identity, and the strategy behind the rollout has been laughable at best.
Conclusion
Eesh, where to begin.
First, a competition to find a logo the owner likes is the biggest reason brands fail to hit the mark. It's not about you, it's about your target market.
People love that blue bird, and there could have been an evolution of the bird, the 2 wings, tail and head could be morphed into an X. It could even have the same flat dynamic.
Second, rebrands must be taken strategically, with patience, consultation and research. This ensures that the final results are cohesive, on time, and on budget, and more importantly, they give you the platform to expand and grow from.
What a rebrand should actually look like
The Twitter to X case study is a masterclass in what happens when a rebrand is driven by ego and speed rather than strategy and audience understanding. No brand audit. No market research. No clear promise to the people who actually use the platform.
A rebrand done properly starts with understanding how you're currently perceived, then defining where you need to go and why. It's one of the most significant decisions a business makes. When it works, it reinvigorates a brand, rebuilds trust, and gives a business a new platform to grow from. When it doesn't, it becomes a case study people write about for years.
If you're wondering whether your brand needs a rebrand or just a refresh, we've put together a diagnostic that takes the guesswork out of it.
When should I rebrand my business? →
We've also analysed the Jaguar rebrand – another case study in what happens when strategy and execution go in different directions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Twitter rebrand to X fail?
The rebrand failed because it skipped the foundational work. No brand audit, no market research, no clear promise to existing users. The decision was driven by speed and a personal vision rather than an understanding of how the audience perceived Twitter and what they needed from it. Brand equity built over 17 years was discarded overnight.
What is a brand audit and why does it matter?
A brand audit reviews how your brand is currently perceived – visually, verbally, behaviourally, and against competitors. It's the starting point for any rebrand because it tells you what's working, what isn't, and what level of change is actually needed. Twitter's rebrand needed one. Most rebrands that go wrong skipped it.
What's the difference between a rebrand and a brand refresh?
A rebrand is a fundamental strategic shift – new positioning, new identity, new promise to the market. A refresh updates what exists without changing the foundation. Twitter needed a strategic rebrand. What it got was a rushed visual change with no strategy underneath it.
How do I know if my business needs a rebrand?
The clearest signs are that customers no longer understand what you do, your brand no longer reflects where the business is heading, or trust has broken down. If you're not sure, a brand audit will tell you within two weeks. Twitter had clear signs that trust was severed, but the vision was to move the brand in a different direction. This needed to be executed carefully by taking all views into account.
How long does a rebrand take?
A full rebrand typically takes 8 to 16 weeks. Twitter's took approximately 24 hours. Complex rebrands involving large teams or physical spaces can take up to 12 months. The two biggest factors that affect the timeline are feedback speed and the number of deliverables in scope.
