As dated, cheap-looking and naive as the original brandmark was, at least it had all the fundamental criteria for a successful brand identity. It had a quirky, distinctive and memorable personality.

You can't get more generic than Dick Smith if you tried. However, the name has huge equity locally and this is a strong position from which to move the brand forward. But add another generic idea no one would recognise unless they're told what it represents isn't going to charm anyone. And express an already lame name with a relatively generic and poorly drawn typeface drains any last gasp attempts at uniqueness.

Times have changed, the market has changed and a new more relevant strategy needs to be made experiential. No surprise. All successful and forward-looking organisations need responsive and relevant positioning strategies...

... but to present a new strategy so poorly is a fat fall-on-your-face fail.

This rebrand smells of a design-led strategy that went horribly wrong. Either it was designed by designers who think they know something about marketing or marketers who aren't very creative or able to express distinct ideas. Someone somewhere along the line got very stressed and very confused. The result demonstrates this in a painfully obvious way.