This is the first analysis from Inside Strategy, a space where we will analyse the key strategic decisions of major brands and companies. We explore the possible internal debates of the teams that made the decision, by imagining the factors they must have taken into account.

We begin with Cepsa’s decision to change its name to Moeve.

Introduction: Cepsa becomes Moeve: a facelift or a new era?

According to the press release of 30 October, “Cepsa has today announced a change of name to Moeve”. In reality, it is not just a change of name, but also the entire visual identity of the brand (logo, colours, graphic resources, etc.). They have even incorporated a sound identity. This is called rebranding. It is not just an update, it is a brand change from top to bottom. I will leave you with the rebranding page in case you have not seen it yet. Which, by the way, is the work of Landor.

The new identity is so different that, at first glance, it must have shocked most of you, as it did me. But let’s analyse it calmly and strategically. The key question we need to ask ourselves is: Does this change make strategic sense? And, having been part of these conversations in the past, let’s imagine the internal debates the team must have had in making this decision.

When a 94-year-old oil company decides to reinvent itself to become a leader in sustainable mobility, it is not just changing its logo. It is betting on its future.

Analysis of the evolution of the Cepsa Moeve logo: Was this rebranding necessary?

The first thing to think about is what a brand is for. From my point of view, a brand, if it is good, is one of a company’s most valuable assets. It is the fundamental vehicle of connection between the company and its customers and consumers. To sum up, a good brand should basically serve to

• Identify: Help recognize the products or services of a certain company and differentiate them from the competition.
• Position: Generate specific expectations of quality.
• Communicate: Transmit the brand’s value proposition, its essential brand attributes, its history and its values.
• Connect: Generate that emotional bond with people that is so difficult to achieve and that only loved brands manage to do.

But that’s not all. For it to be an asset that helps the business (which is what it’s all about), it is key that it is aligned with the company’s strategy. What’s more, it must build in the direction set by the business strategy.

This point is key in this story since in March 2022 the company launched its strategy to 2030 “Positive Motion”. Already in the subtitle of that document they said “Strategy 2030. For a new Cepsa”. This plan sets out a clear vision for the company: “Leading sustainable mobility and energy to create value and a better future for all”.

In this vision I lack the geographical framework since they talk about leadership and I don’t know if they refer to Spain, Europe or the world. But in any case, the intention is clear, they want to stop being an oil company and become a sustainable energy company. In fact, in subsequent documents, including the press release announcing the name change, they do specify the geography, when they talk about being one of the benchmarks of the European energy transition. I think this verbalization is more accurate and is the one they are currently using.

And although today approximately 50% of the company’s results come from oil and its derivatives, the truth is that they are taking decisive steps and at a good pace in the direction of their vision: such as the Andalusian Valley of Green Hydrogen they are developing (the largest project for this fuel presented to date in Europe), the 2G biofuel complex in Huelva (the largest in southern Europe), or the ultra-fast chargers they are incorporating into service stations. You have all the details in their press release and in their annual reports. But it is clear that they are making very significant investments, they are not just good intentions and words in a PowerPoint presentation. It is being translated into action.

We already know their vision. So let‘s see if the CEPSA brand could help them build towards that vision.

CEPSA stands for Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A. Founded in 1929, it was the first private oil company in Spain. But that legacy, a strength in the past, now goes against its new vision.

The company is evolving, leaving behind its historical identity as a Spanish oil company. Today the company is owned by Mubadala Investment Company and The Carlyle Group. The former is a holding company of the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi considered a sovereign wealth fund and the latter is one of the world’s largest private equity and alternative asset management firms, based in Washington DC. They neither want to be an oil company nor are they a Spanish company any more, nor do they want to position themselves as such (remember that their aim is to be a benchmark in Europe). The pieces are starting to fall into place because the company they want to build has little to do with the one founded in 1929.

The S.A. ending of the name does not help either. It also has connotations of an old Spanish company as it is the ending that was previously used by all companies that were incorporated as public limited companies. The fact that it is an acronym also takes us back to that era and the fact that it is written in capital letters gives it an extra air of seriousness and remoteness.

The star-shaped symbol and the color red, which have been present in the brand since 1977, also allude to its Spanish roots and can be associated with combustion.

Additionally, although we have not found data on the health of the Cepsa brand that could help us understand how it was perceived, we assume that they did have those Brand Health Trackers or Brand Powers and that despite the fact that Cepsa is a recognized brand that would have good data on notoriety and spontaneous and suggested brand awareness, I dare to assume that Repsol had passed it by appropriating the attributes of innovation and closeness.

Inside the boardroom: The difficult questions

I have presented my analysis, but what analysis would they be doing? What did they gain and what did they lose with the change? What conversations might they have had? Having participated in rebrandings, I know how complex it can be to make decisions like these. Especially considering the implications they have: changing a brand with strong recognition is a long and costly process (it’s been over a year since Twitter changed to X and even now when the social network is mentioned, reference is made to its former name).

I suppose that part of the conversations would revolve around the same issues covered in the analysis we have set out above, but obviously having much more information. They would also take into account other aspects. Not only with regard to the decision itself – changing the name – but also the implications for the organization and customers and also on the best way to implement it. Some questions that surely arose:

• When opting for a new brand, how far away from the current one? Should it be a total break or can we look for an alternative that maintains some of the legacy? What color and brand territories are available to capitalize on and differentiate ourselves? What elements should the new brand have to help communicate the company’s vision and generate a greater connection with our customers and consumers?
• How can we ensure that it doesn’t have an impact on business? How can we communicate this change without generating mistrust among current customers? How can we make sure that they will find out but won’t think that we can no longer offer them the services they need?
• When is the best time to do it?
• How much is this change going to cost, bearing in mind that the image of all the service stations has to be updated?

Conclusion: A good strategy, but with nuances.

I think so, changing the name was a good decision. In fact, we have a precedent in the Spanish energy market which is the change from gasNatural to Naturgy (2018). Although it is true that the change was not so radical because although they changed their name they kept (although they updated) some aspects of the previous visual identity, colors, the butterfly symbol, etc. As they themselves state in a post published in February 2024, Naturgy has been recognized in the latest Kantar BrandZ as the energy brand that has increased its value the most, by 11%, while its comparable brands have had worse luck, as they either remain the same or have declined. Another even earlier example can be found in the change of Acciona, formerly called Grupo Entrecanales y Tavora.

Yes to change, but is what they have designed appropriate?

I think the naming is good: moeve better communicates where they want to position themselves, in sustainable mobility. Besides, energy is used to move, to propel. It has positive connotations. When you say it in Spanish it almost sounds like “mueve” (and in fact that’s how they say it in the adverts) but at the same time, by having the “o”, it has an interesting point of abstraction (in the end they are not mobility) and it is more international.

It is a simple, memorable, differentiating, sonorous name that is easy to pronounce…. You can’t ask for much more for a global brand (as difficult as it is to register a brand nowadays).

The logo in general also makes sense: the fact that it is in lower case and with a more rounded and modern font makes it more approachable and contemporary. The font also suggests movement and the typography is clear and legible.

What I’m not so convinced about is some aspect of the design. In particular, I’m not convinced by the “m”, whose legs have been replaced by doors that are supposed to suggest openness to the future. On the other hand, at first glance and from a distance, it reminded me more of a dolmen, which takes me to the very distant past and not to the future as they intended. Nor do I associate it with any of the attributes or values of the brand that they want to promote (sustainability, mobility). Finally, the specific symbol of the door (which they later use as a graphic element in other activations), I consider to be a less proprietary resource: it reminds me of the symbol used by Windows and it is very similar to the Spotify bookstore icon.

I understand that they have opted for a color palette inspired by the earth, but perhaps they could have gone for slightly more serious and less fluorescent tones (yellow and pink, above all). Too start-up for a company of that stature. The blue they’ve chosen reminds me a lot of 02 and other low-cost brands. It’s a bit too light or frivolous. I think it needs more depth or maybe an original green or brown would have made sense. But hey, I’m not going on and on. After all, I’m not a designer 😉

It’s your turn

The change to Moeve is an ambitious step towards sustainability. Now, the challenge is to consolidate this new identity and gain the trust of its customers in this change. What do you think of this transition? Share your ideas in the comments.

Thanks for reading.