When a company rebrands, most attention goes to the marketing campaign or the CEO unveiling a sleek new logo. Yet behind every corporate transformation, the most consequential decisions often happen out of public view, inside the boardroom.
A rebrand is rarely about design. It’s a test of identity, leadership, and governance. The recent transformation of MSNBC into MS Now highlights the delicate balance between refreshing a brand and protecting shareholder value. But according to governance expert James Drury III, CEO of JamesDruryPartners, the board’s influence expands far beyond a single case.
“The rebranding of MSNBC to MS Now illustrates both the promise and the pitfalls of high-stakes corporate identity transformations,” said Drury. “While the move signals a fresh strategic direction, it also invites scrutiny from audiences, employees, and investors accustomed to a legacy brand.”
From a governance perspective, moments like these define whether directors understand their true role. “It is precisely in moments like this that boards must remember their role – to represent shareholder interests by providing judicious oversight,” Drury explains. “It is the board’s responsibility to ensure the executive team is exercising good judgment and wise decision-making through rigorous questioning and sound guidance, not by dictating tactics and execution.”
The Board’s Role in Strategic Alignment
When a company changes its brand identity, directors must ensure the decision serves the long-term vision, not short-term optics. “The board’s role is to ensure management has made a clear, evidence-based case for why the change supports the company’s long-term vision,” said Drury. “Directors should press management by asking the right questions: How does this strengthen competitive positioning? What market insights drove the decision? How will success be measured? What are the risks if it fails? Their primary responsibility is oversight, ensuring the decision is rooted in strategy, not expediency.”
Boards at companies like Meta and Twitter (now X) have faced similar governance tests. Behind the public debate over names and identities were directors responsible for ensuring the brand evolution was grounded in credible strategy and not personality-driven ambition.
Guarding Reputation and Managing Risk
In an age when reputation can shift overnight, boards must anticipate the ripple effects of major rebrands. “Boards mitigate reputational risk by ensuring management has conducted thorough risk assessments, stakeholder research, and crisis-response planning,” said Drury. “Directors should challenge management on whether sufficient testing has been done and whether the company is prepared for criticism, confusion, or backlash. Yet, the board does not design ad campaigns or dictate how to handle critics.”
A poorly executed brand change can erode trust faster than any quarterly loss. Directors who fail to challenge assumptions risk being caught off guard when sentiment turns negative.
Communication and Oversight
Clear and consistent communication is another governance responsibility. “Boards should verify that management has a disciplined communications plan covering employees, investors, regulators, partners, and the public,” Drury noted. “For example, board directors may ask: Is the message coherent across audiences? Does it reflect the company’s values and long-term strategy? How will effectiveness be monitored? Best practice is for board directors to probe the clarity of the messaging, but never to dictate the communications strategy themselves.”
Strong boards know that brand credibility depends as much on consistency as creativity. Oversight ensures the message reflects the company’s principles and long-term strategic intent.
Building the Right Governance Framework
Rebranding often coincides with corporate restructuring, acquisitions, or spin-offs. As the founder of a management consulting firm specializing in board advisory services, Drury understands that boards must evolve accordingly. “Separating and spinning out publicly traded corporations requires boards with the right mix of experience: directors who understand the public offering process, corporate strategy, business and brand transformation, and investor communications. This expertise allows boards to ask prudent questions and provide more informed oversight.”
When governance structures are aligned with expertise, boards are better positioned to guide management and reassure shareholders that the brand’s reinvention supports sustainable growth.
Leadership Beyond the Logo
Rebranding is never just about design or messaging; it is a reflection of leadership discipline. The best boards know when to lean in and when to step back. Drury reminds us, “Boards must maintain a ‘noses in, fingers out’ approach. Their job is to probe, question, and oversee, not to manage the company and the decisions its executive leaders make.”
For boards overseeing identity transformations, from established media networks to multinational conglomerates, the mandate is clear: safeguard shareholder value by ensuring strategy drives brand, not the other way around. At the end of the day, every rebrand is a leadership test, and the board is its final examiner.
Written in partnership with Tom White
