FISHBOWL to THISBOWL: a rebrand I don't love, but a business decision I understand

FISHBOWL is now THISBOWL and, speaking purely from a branding and design perspective, I don’t love it. FISHBOWL was distinctive, memorable and had ten years of recognition behind it. THISBOWL feels more generic. Take away the existing customer familiarity and visual identity and I struggle to imagine putting the two names side by side as new naming concepts and choosing THISBOWL as the stronger creative option.

But there is a problem with FISHBOWL that became very obvious when I conducted some extremely unofficial market research around our office. Of the ten people I asked, four had never eaten there because they assumed the menu was predominantly seafood and, more specifically, mostly raw fish. All four were surprised when I told them they could order chicken, beef or tofu. It is certainly not a statistically significant consumer study, but 40 per cent of a room effectively ruling themselves out as customers because of what your name communicates is pretty interesting.

It also closely reflects the reasoning behind the change. When FISHBOWL opened its first Bondi store in 2016, its protein offering was kingfish, salmon and tuna. Ten years later, salmon is the only seafood protein remaining on the core menu and reportedly represents less than a third of orders. The business has evolved considerably, while the name continued to describe a version of the product that no longer really existed.

From a commercial perspective, the problem makes complete sense. It is the execution of the solution where I become less convinced.

For a brand making a significant change to its name and positioning, visually very little appears to be changing. The familiar scribbled fish remains a central part of the identity, alongside much of the visual language customers already recognise. There is absolutely a place for retaining heritage brand elements. FISHBOWL has spent a decade building familiarity and equity, and abandoning everything recognisable would make little sense. But retaining heritage should not mean standing still.

The new name is intended to broaden the proposition and communicate that there is a bowl for anyone, regardless of what they like to eat. Yet the visual identity still leads heavily with fish. If the strategic problem is that customers are interpreting FISHBOWL too literally, removing the word “fish” while keeping a fish as the most recognisable visual element feels like stopping halfway.

For me, this was the opportunity to expand the visual brand alongside the positioning. The fish could remain part of the brand’s history and recognition but wihin a broader visual system that better represents what THISBOWL has become. A successful evolution should allow customers to recognise where a brand has come from while also showing them where it is going.

It is also a useful reminder of one of the hardest parts of developing any new brand. When we create an identity, we never really know exactly where that business will end up. Products change, audiences grow and businesses enter new markets. Sometimes the thing that felt completely right at launch becomes restrictive years later.

A good Creative Director cannot predict the future, but they should be thinking about it. Brand development should always leave room for growth, product diversification and changes in positioning without losing what made the brand distinctive in the first place.

To be fair to FISHBOWL, few brands could have predicted exactly where a small Bondi store would be a decade later. The business now has more than 60 restaurants across Australia and the US, and THISBOWL itself is not entirely new . The name was introduced in New York in 2024 before being brought back to the Australian market. The business has clearly evolved well beyond its original product and location.

Which brings me back to my unofficial office survey.

I liked FISHBOWL because it was distinctive in the fresh bowl market, and for me, fish is a drawcard not a hinderance. Four people sitting a few metres away from me saw that same distinctiveness as a literal description of a menu they did not want. That is a fundamental disconnect, and it probably the most compelling argument for the change.

I still think the visual execution could have gone further. Keeping recognisable heritage elements makes sense, but a positioning change this significant deserved a visual identity that expanded with it. At the same time, a brand does not need every designer to love it, it just needs the right customers to understand it.

And if THISBOWL gets more people through the door who previously assumed there was nothing on the menu for them, the business may care a lot less about whether those of us in design preferred the old name.