What Worked (and Didn't) When I Modernized a 20-Year-Old Brand
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
I joined RXNT in 2019 to lead a rebranding effort, inheriting two decades of ground-breaking corporate history and an aging brand identity that no longer reflected the company's story or lofty goals. The company was celebrating 20 years of innovation, but needed a refresh.
After launching as an electronic prescribing software in 1999, the company was saddled with a narrow perception despite expanding into a broader range of solutions over time. The e-prescribing specialization did serve us well with the market exploding in the early 2000s, but as competition stiffened and expanded, our brand's limited perception held us back.
It didn't take long to realize that to change our perception and stand out in a sea of stale, antiquated identities, we had to be bold.
Overcoming outdated perceptions
Every established organization faces an inflection point: you've built a track record, earned industry trust, and your name is well-known, but familiarity is working against you. In our case, doctors knew RXNT primarily as an e-prescribing solution, which limited our growth. Potential customers looked at us through a narrow lens and assumed we only offered one piece of the puzzle.
We'd spent years developing a perception of affordability, ease-of-use and support, which were all incredibly valuable. However, a focus on intangible qualities overshadowed how much our products and features had expanded and developed. In a crowded marketplace full of established players with big venture-capital budgets and bigger teams, being "safe" meant blending into the background.
Without any real transformation, there was a risk of stagnation in a quick-moving industry: in short, evolve or be left behind. The solution was a positioning shift with our language, strategy and identity.
From the initial beta launch of e-prescribing in 2000, new practice solutions were added periodically — electronic health records, then medical billing, mobile applications, patient portal and more. To combat outdated consumer perceptions, our entire brand strategy was re-envisioned during the rebranding process. We focused on RXNT as a complete, integrated solution in contrast to many competitors who offer only siloed or specialty-specific solutions.
We needed to stop being viewed as an add-on, instead becoming the backbone for a healthcare practice's entire day-to-day. Why use many mismatched puzzle pieces from vendors across the health IT industry when providers can add RXNT and run their entire practice from intake to payments?
Related: Follow These Strategies to Take Your Brand to the Next Level
A fresh, energetic look with trust as foundation
The medical space — from practices, to insurance, to software — often takes a conservative approach to branding. Blue is by far the most dominant color across the space, used to evoke stability, trust and professionalism. Again and again, we encountered patterns of safe, clinical, monotonous brands. Even RXNT's dominant color was blue, and to break away from our outdated image, we needed to differentiate ourselves from the same-old approach.
Choosing a vibrant color palette was our first bold step. We landed on a bright combination of orange and blue, a purposeful departure from the conservative standard in the industry. Blue still has a place in our palette, but the combination felt youthful, fresh and exciting.
By rethinking everything from our website to our campaign visuals, we carried the identity throughout the brand experience. We refreshed our iconography, opting for more dynamic, modern visuals that spoke to innovation instead of the usual compliance or functionality. We also chose authentic imagery that was more likely to resonate, rather than generic stock images of happy-looking doctors.
Of course, differentiation is not nearly enough by itself. In healthcare, trust is everything, and if the rebrand came across as all flash and no substance, we'd risk pushing away clients who valued our stability.
We were careful to balance bold visuals with messaging that showcased our proven track record and dedication to stable, secure solutions. In other words, we used color, design and tone to signal new energy without compromising the trust we had spent years building.
Related: What Small Business Owners Can Learn From This Multi-Billion-Dollar Beverage Company's Rebrand
Navigating the change
With two decades of innovation already behind us, many of our customers were well-established and had been with us for many years. Any kind of sweeping change always carries a risk that your customer base will no longer identify with you — with a rebrand, the perception they've built about your brand may no longer match the story you're telling. But the reality is, if you're growing and staying relevant is important to you (as it should be), it's necessary to embrace change while keeping your brand history in sight.
We navigated that balance by sticking to our roots of integrity and honesty, making sure customer service continued to be a core part of our values, and making decisions for the long term rather than the cash grab. We also communicated our vision for the rebrand early and explained why it was time for change, making sure to highlight the benefits and the "why" using real data and customer feedback as highlights.
Our past did follow through into the rebrand — we kept the company name and wove in hints of our original identity to strike a balance between a fresh look and familiarity. It pays homage to our history as one of the first medical software solutions on the market, using three colors to reflect the overlap between health and technology.
Playing it safe is the biggest rebranding risk
Ultimately, rebranding isn't just about your look. It's about strategic positioning, shaping perceptions for your ideal customer and committing to a long-term vision that aligns with broad company goals.
More than 5 years on, letting go of the safe choice was the backbone of this transformation. By pushing for energy and distinction — and getting the rest of the team on board — we fundamentally changed how the market viewed us, which opened the gates for future innovation and growth.
For businesses considering a rebrand in an established industry, dare to go boldly. You may ruffle some feathers, but staying put in the safe lane poses a far greater threat to your future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
NBA's talks about new league in Europe are continuing, though the process remains in early stages
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The NBA's talks with FIBA and other entities about the process of adding a new league in Europe are continuing, Commissioner Adam Silver said, though he noted that it may take at least a couple more years to turn the ideas into reality. Silver spoke at a league event to unveil a refurbished Boys & Girls Club in Oklahoma City on Friday — an off day for the NBA Finals — and said it's difficult to put a specific timeline on the Europe plans. 'I will say it's measured in years, not months,' Silver said. 'So, we're at least a couple years away from launching. It would be an enormous undertaking. And while we want to move forward at a deliberate pace, we also want to make sure that we're consulting with all the appropriate stakeholders, meaning the existing league, its teams, European players, media companies, marketing partners. There's a lot of work to be done.' Silver and FIBA secretary general Andreas Zagklis announced in March that the league and the game's governing body are finally taking long-awaited steps to form a new league, with an initial target of 16 teams. It had been talked about for years, and decades even on some levels. And since the NBA and FIBA went public with their idea to move forward, talks have gotten more constructive, Silver said. Silver said the NBA has been talking directly with the EuroLeague and with some member clubs about a partnership. It's his preference that the NBA work with the existing league on some level, though it's still too early to say exactly what that means. 'Either way, we continue to feel there are an enormous number of underserved basketball fans in Europe and that there's a strong opportunity to have another league styled after the NBA,' Silver said. About one in every six current NBA players hails from Europe, including Denver's Nikola Jokic (Serbia) and Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece) — who have combined for five of the last seven MVP awards — along with the Los Angeles Lakers' Luka Doncic (Slovenia) and San Antonio's Victor Wembanyama (France). The NBA's board of governors will talk more about next steps with the European plans in July at their scheduled meeting in Las Vegas, Silver said. It's possible that the European venture could be unveiled in some way — or possibly start — around the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, just given how much attention will be on international basketball at that time. 'That might be a good launching pad for an announcement around a new competition,' Silver said. Some of the cities that are expected to have interest in being part of the new venture include London, Manchester, Rome and Munich. There will be others, of course. 'We haven't had direct conversations yet,' Silver said. 'But there have been several organizations that have come forward and said they would be interested and potential owners in operating in those major markets in Europe.' ___ AP NBA:
TechCrunch
36 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Trump fast-tracks supersonic travel, amid spate of flight-related executive orders
In Brief President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that directs the Federal Aviation Administration to lift the 52-year ban on supersonic flight over U.S. soil, marking a major policy shift that occurred just weeks after lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation with the same aim. The order instructs the FAA to end the overland supersonic ban and create noise-based certification standards, allowing faster-than-sound travel as long as no audible sonic boom reaches the ground. 'The reality is that Americans should be able to fly from New York to LA in under four hours,' Michael Kratsios, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told reporters Friday. The move could help accelerate commercial supersonic flight development, including efforts by Boom Supersonic. In January, Boom's XB-1 demonstrator became the first privately developed civil aircraft to break the sound barrier over the continental U.S. Asked for comment Friday, Boom CEO Blake Scholl wrote 'Booooom!' in an email to TechCrunch. Added Scholl, 'The sound barrier was never physical — it was regulatory. With supersonic legalized, the return of supersonic passenger air travel is just a matter of time.' Trump also signed two other future-of-flight executive orders Friday: one to speed up drone commercialization and electric vertical takeoff vehicle development, and another to establish a federal task force on drone flight restrictions.
Forbes
38 minutes ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
