Same old, same old -- soo boring. Whenever a big corporation is undergoing a branding/rebranding process, the usual series of facts pop up around it. Things are becoming a bit repetitive. We're going to name this unnamed spleen and sadness The Post-Branding Syndrome. Here are the symptoms:

1. The newspapers funded with competitor's money are going to say -- through some chap or another posing as Robin Hood -- that the operation was not necessary and it's all basically just crap. The money should've been donated to the poor instead.
2. Random individuals are going to voice random opinions and media will choose to baptize some of them as "experts".
3. Fly-by-night designers will loathe the visual ID and express once again the obvious: they could have done it better blindfolded, even in their worst day. Even if the ID was created by a top-ten or top-three company from the most competitive market.
4. Branding enthusiasts that never "branded" anything larger than a dead-by-now startup or a small-town boutique will come forward and loudly comment on the brand architecture or positioning. Of course, they could have done it better blindfolded, even in their worst day.
5. No matter how large the organization, how long the branding/rebranding process or how difficult the context, the starting presumption will be that every branding enthusiast walking the streets or clogging the discussion lists knows and understands the business facts, the resources involved, the goals and the confidential briefs.
6. Designers are going be profoundly unsatisfied with copy while the copywriters are going to express concerns about graphics. Complete strangers will worry about both.
7. In rebranding companies/services nobody will ask about the internal brand perspective. Because it's not important.

Try and get over it, guys, think of something completely new -- working instead of talking, maybe? I'm sure your reputation could benefit from that, too.