Researching and Rolling Out a Product Rebrand with Kelly Jura | Episode #99

Kelly Jura explains how ScreenPal spent years studying Screencast-O-Matic before changing a brand used by roughly 8 million people worldwide. The team wanted to preserve the product while replacing a name that was difficult to remember, type, and recommend.

The platform lets people record a screen, webcam, or both, edit the result, and share it. It was heavily adopted in K-12 and higher education. ScreenPal also wanted to serve enterprise learning, training, onboarding, and knowledge-sharing use cases, making first impressions among new audiences especially important.

What you'll learn

• How existing users and unfamiliar prospects revealed different parts of the brand problem

• Why social listening exposed friction that satisfaction research alone could miss

• How comparative name testing and outside consultants reduced internal bias

• Why the team paused the launch during the pandemic and later coordinated a 24-hour rollout

Separate product equity from name recognition

The company began with global surveys and focus groups involving existing customers. It also researched people who had never heard of Screencast-O-Matic, allowing the team to compare established experience with a first impression. Existing users repeatedly emphasized that they cared about keeping the product itself. That finding suggested the value resided in the experience more than in the name, giving the company room to transfer customer trust to a new identity.

Social listening added behavioral evidence. Advocates used eight or nine variations of the old name, including shortened and rearranged forms. A 16-character name with two hyphens and a brand icon was difficult even for people who liked the product. The problem was not merely whether respondents said they approved of the brand. It was whether they could accurately recall and communicate it in public.

Research with unfamiliar audiences revealed another issue. The old name was intended to feel playful, fast, and approachable, but global respondents often perceived it as silly or unprofessional. That mattered most among enterprise prospects. Some people in HR and training roles said the name would make them reluctant to expense the product or mention it to colleagues. The product could satisfy current educators while the brand still limited entry into a new market.

Test choices against the market, not internal enthusiasm

Jura says the team spent almost two years collecting information about Screencast-O-Matic, then repeated research with proposed names and positioning. It compared the leading option with competing brands and used a MaxDiff exercise that asked respondents for their most and least preferred choices. Screencast-O-Matic finished last regardless of the alternatives placed beside it, strengthening the case for change.

The team also brought in consultants when an external perspective could help. Because employees had a personal stake in the outcome, independent researchers could examine both the methods and findings for signs of confirmation bias. That safeguard became practical when names Jura personally liked failed to resonate. Rather than defend the full brand experience she had imagined around a favorite, she returned to the evidence and kept testing.

ScreenPal performed well because respondents found it approachable while also easier to spell, type, and recommend. Once the name was selected, research continued. The team iterated on platform statements, messaging, the brand mark, visual identity, and the broader user experience. Jura describes roughly another six months of refinement with both current audiences and the audiences the company hoped to reach. Personas also evolved through interviews with people in HR and training, focusing not only on job function but on goals, motivations, frustrations, values, and attitudes.

Match rollout speed to customer conditions

The company was close to launching in early 2020, but the pandemic changed the decision. As educators moved rapidly into remote and hybrid learning, the team shifted into operations and support. Jura handled onboarding, monitored support channels, and worked through large volumes of tickets. The influx produced useful evidence about new-user pain points, but it also created the wrong conditions for introducing a new name. Customers were already adapting tools and workflows under pressure, so the company paused the rebrand for about two years rather than add friction.

When the launch did happen, coordination was concentrated. The marketing site, sharing platform, Windows and Mac applications, mobile apps, Chrome extension, support communication, messaging, tone, and design system moved to the new identity within 24 hours. Jura attributes that outcome to a collaborative process in which teams understood why the change mattered, the growth opportunity behind it, and their role in delivery.

After launch, the company continued social listening and reviewed reactions to the new identity. Jura says the overall response was positive, while ongoing monitoring helped the team assess whether its communication remained appropriate across touchpoints. Her larger lesson is proportionality: rapid testing works for many interface or messaging decisions, but a high-impact change affecting existing customers requires enough time and evidence to support confidence.

Listen to the full conversation: Episode #99 audio.

ScreenPal treated rebranding as a product and customer-experience decision: test the language, protect existing users, and align every touchpoint before release.