Table of Contents
Introduction: The Protagonist with a Plot Hole
In the world of brand strategy, we are, at our core, storytellers.
We build narratives, craft identities, and forge connections between a company and its audience.
Some stories are simple novellas; others are sprawling epics.
Early in my career, as a young strategist hungry for these epics, I became obsessed with one particular case study: the 1991 rebranding of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
On the surface, it was a simple abbreviation.
But to me, it felt like a profound and jarring plot hole in one of the world’s most recognizable brand sagas.
Here was a global giant, a titan of industry built on a name that was more than just a label.
“Kentucky Fried Chicken” was a promise.
It evoked images of Southern hospitality, the charm of a white-suited Colonel, and the mystique of a secret recipe with 11 herbs and spices whispered about for decades.1
This name was the brand’s origin story, its identity, and its core value proposition all rolled into three iconic words.
And then, seemingly overnight, they abandoned it.
The official explanations circulated in business schools and marketing textbooks felt flimsy, like a novelist forcing their beloved protagonist through a life-altering change for reasons that were too convenient, too superficial.
It didn’t ring true.
What truly compels a global institution to amputate the very name that made it an icon? Why would a bestselling author suddenly rewrite the title of their masterpiece?
This question became a professional fixation.
It led me down a rabbit hole of corporate lore, public relations spin, and bizarre public mythology.
What I eventually uncovered was a story far more complex and fascinating than I could have imagined.
It was a tale not just of marketing, but of legal warfare, of identity crisis, and of strategic genius born from necessity.
To truly understand the transformation from “Kentucky Fried Chicken” to “KFC,” we must approach it as a literary deconstruction.
We must see the brand as an iconic protagonist and its stewards as master novelists.
In 1991, they weren’t just making a minor edit; they were undertaking a fundamental rewrite of their main character, forced by a powerful and unexpected antagonist.
This is the story of that rewrite—the official first draft presented to the public, the wild fan fiction that filled the narrative gaps, and the hidden manuscript page that reveals the shocking truth.
Part I: The Official Story — A Convenient First Draft
Every major character change in a long-running series requires a public explanation.
The novelist must provide the audience with a reason, something that justifies the new direction.
When Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC, its parent company, PepsiCo, offered a tidy trio of reasons.2
This was the official narrative, the first draft of the story presented to the world.
It was logical, strategically sound on the surface, and perfectly aligned with the business zeitgeist of the early 1990s.
Yet, like any good mystery, its very neatness was a clue that something was missing.
The ‘Fried’ Fallacy: A Health-Conscious Alibi
The most widely circulated reason for the change was a direct nod to a powerful cultural shift.
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw a rising tide of health and nutrition consciousness sweep across America and the Western world.3
The word “fried,” once a descriptor of delicious, home-style cooking, was rapidly accumulating negative connotations of artery-clogging fats and unhealthy choices.5
KFC’s public relations team leaned heavily into this narrative.
The official statement, as reported by numerous outlets, was that the company wanted to de-emphasize the “F-word”.7
They were expanding their menu, looking to offer “healthier” alternatives, and believed the full name was a deterrent to the modern, health-aware consumer.3
The novelist, in this telling, was simply updating their protagonist’s descriptor to make them more palatable to a new generation of readers who preferred their heroes lean and clean.
On its face, this was a plausible and strategically convenient explanation.
It positioned KFC not as a company reacting to pressure, but as a proactive, forward-thinking brand in tune with its customers.
The problem, as I saw it even then, was that it was a transparently thin alibi.
The company’s core product, its signature offering, the very soul of its menu, was and remained fried chicken.4
Trying to hide the word “fried” behind the letter “F” wasn’t fooling anyone.7
It was a cosmetic change that didn’t alter the fundamental nature of the product.
This was the first crack in the official story—a character claiming to have changed their ways while still engaging in the same old behavior.
The Diversification Play: Breaking Out of the Bucket
A much stronger pillar of the official narrative was the argument for menu diversification.
By the early 1990s, KFC was no longer just a purveyor of the Colonel’s Original Recipe chicken, served by the piece or in a bucket.
The company was aggressively innovating to compete in the fast-paced, ever-changing fast-food landscape.
Spicy “Hot Wings” had been a successful launch in 1990, popcorn chicken was introduced in 1992, and the chain was experimenting with non-fried items like “Colonel’s Rotisserie Gold”.2
The name “Kentucky Fried Chicken,” the argument went, was becoming a strategic straitjacket.
It pigeonholed the brand, limiting public perception of what it could offer.4
How do you market a new line of non-fried products or fish sandwiches under a banner that explicitly screams “Fried Chicken”? The move to the acronym “KFC” was positioned as a way to open up the brand’s architecture, allowing it to become a broader food purveyor rather than just a chicken specialist.2
This logic is sound.
It’s a classic rebranding trigger seen in other major companies.
Boston Chicken, for instance, followed the exact same path when it rebranded as Boston Market to reflect its expanded menu of turkey, ham, and meatloaf.6
In our novelist analogy, this is the author realizing their protagonist has developed new skills and talents.
To keep calling them by a title that only reflects their original, singular talent would be to undersell their evolution and limit future plotlines.
The Acronym Age: Keeping Up with the HoJo’s
The third piece of the official explanation was context.
The name change did not happen in a cultural vacuum.
The 1990s was an era of simplification and speed, and marketing trends reflected this.
Acronyms became a popular tool for making long, cumbersome brand names snappier, more modern, and easier to fit on a billboard.6
The International House of Pancakes had become the universally known “IHOP.” Howard Johnson’s was affectionately called “HoJo”.6
Even the decade’s defining playground fad, Pogs, was an acronym for the Passion Orange Guava juice caps from which the game originated.11
The shift from the seven-syllable “Kentucky Fried Chicken” to the punchy, three-letter “KFC” was perfectly in step with this trend.12
For a brand with ambitions of rapid global expansion, an acronym offered significant advantages.
It was linguistically simpler, visually more powerful on signage, and culturally more neutral than a name tied to a specific American state.4
The novelist was simply giving their character a modern, streamlined name that would travel well and look good on a book cover anywhere in the world.
Taken together, these three reasons formed a cohesive and highly defensible public narrative.
It was a story of a legacy brand smartly evolving for a modern, global, health-conscious consumer with an ever-diversifying menu.
It sounded like a masterclass in forward-thinking strategy.
The genius of this official story, however, was not in the individual strength of its arguments, but in their collective power as a strategic smokescreen.
They provided a complete, plausible, and proactive-sounding business case that successfully masked a far more contentious, embarrassing, and reactive reason for the change.
They allowed the novelist to frame a decision forced upon them by an outside threat as a brilliant, voluntary act of creative genius.
Part II: The Underworld of Myth — Bizarre Fan Fiction
When a story’s official plot has holes, the audience will inevitably write its own version to fill the gaps.
The perceived weakness of KFC’s official narrative created a perfect narrative vacuum, and what rushed in to fill it was not rational critique, but a torrent of bizarre, horrifying, and incredibly persistent fan fiction.
The most famous of these was the “mutant chicken” myth, an urban legend so potent it has haunted the brand for decades.
The Mutant Chicken Manifesto: Rise of the “Kentucky Fried Creature”
The myth, which began spreading like wildfire through word-of-mouth and early internet chain emails in the 1990s, offered a truly sinister explanation for the name change.14
It claimed that Kentucky Fried Chicken was forced to drop the word “chicken” from its name by the U.S. government because it was no longer serving actual chickens.1
The legend was astonishingly detailed.
It described the company breeding “genetically manipulated organisms” in vast, secret laboratories.
These so-called “chickens” were grotesque parodies of nature: creatures with no beaks, no feathers, and no feet, their bone structures shrunken to maximize the meat-to-bone ratio.15
To keep these monstrosities alive, tubes were supposedly inserted into their bodies to pump blood and nutrients throughout their systems.16
Some versions of the story claimed these creatures were engineered with multiple legs and wings—four, six, or even eight—to increase the yield for buckets and wing platters.1
To lend an air of credibility, the story often cited a fictitious study conducted at the University of New Hampshire as the source of these shocking revelations.14
The novelist’s unconvincing plot twist—a hero changing their name for vague reasons—had been replaced by a fan-written horror story, a dark and elaborate backstory that explained everything with terrifying clarity.
Deconstructing the Hoax: A Forensic Investigation
The power of this myth was its narrative completeness.
It tapped into deep-seated public anxieties of the era: the rise of genetic engineering, a growing distrust of large corporations, and fears about the industrial food complex.14
However, despite its visceral appeal, the entire story was a fabrication, a hoax that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
A forensic look at the evidence quickly dismantles the legend.
The central claim—that KFC was legally barred from using the word “chicken”—is demonstrably false.
Throughout the 1990s and to this day, the company has continued to use the word “chicken” prominently in its advertising, on its menus, and on its official website.15
The University of New Hampshire has publicly and repeatedly denied ever conducting such a study.14
Furthermore, in a world where food safety and genetic modification controversies generate massive media headlines, the idea that a story of this magnitude—a global fast-food chain serving lab-grown mutants—would somehow escape mainstream news coverage is ludicrous.16
KFC, for its part, has been fighting the myth for years.
The company’s parent, Yum! Brands, even successfully sued three Chinese technology companies in 2016 for spreading the hoax on the social media app WeChat, complete with photoshopped images of the supposed creatures.19
In a final, ironic twist, the artist who created one of the most famous and widely circulated images of a “mutant chicken” later revealed he had done so specifically as a lesson for his students to demonstrate how easily such hoaxes can be manufactured and spread.18
The debunking is simple, but the more fascinating question is why the myth has persisted for so long.
It speaks to a fundamental principle of branding and communication: perception, however false, can be more powerful than reality.
The story had “legs” because it felt emotionally true to an audience that was already primed to be skeptical of the official narrative.
This reveals a symbiotic relationship between a weak corporate story and potent public mythology.
The “mutant chicken” legend did not arise in a vacuum.
Its incredible success was directly enabled by the flimsiness of KFC’s “health-conscious” alibi.
The public sensed a disconnect between the company’s words and its actions—a brand famous for fried chicken claiming to be concerned about the word “fried” while changing nothing about its core product.
This created a cognitive dissonance that the official story could not resolve.
The myth, in its own twisted way, offered a resolution.
It proposed a reason so extreme that it made the name change seem not just logical, but grimly necessary.
“Of course they had to change the name,” the logic of the myth goes, “they aren’t even selling real chickens anymore!” This dynamic serves as a stark warning: a brand’s narrative vacuum will always be filled.
If the official story is not compelling, authentic, and believable, the public will create one that is—and it may be a monster.
Part III: The Epiphany — Unmasking the Antagonist
For years, my understanding of the KFC rebrand was a binary choice between a polished but unconvincing corporate narrative and a lurid but debunked urban legend.
It was a story with no satisfying conclusion.
The epiphany—the moment the entire case snapped into focus—came when I stumbled upon the third narrative.
This was the hidden story, the missing manuscript page that revealed the true antagonist and the real reason for the protagonist’s sudden, dramatic change.
The novelist, it turned out, didn’t choose to rewrite their character; they were forced to by an act of shocking betrayal from the character’s own birthplace.
The Commonwealth’s Tollbooth: A Hostile Act
The true inciting incident occurred not in a marketing meeting or a focus group, but in the halls of government.
In 1990, the year immediately preceding the rebrand, the Commonwealth of Kentucky was facing significant state debt.7
In a move that was equal parts desperate, ingenious, and hostile, the state government decided to trademark its own name.7
This single act sent shockwaves through the business world.
It meant that any company, organization, or entity using the word “Kentucky” for commercial purposes would now be required to obtain a license and pay a royalty fee to the state.7
Suddenly, the name “Kentucky” was no longer a shared cultural heritage; it was a piece of intellectual property owned by the government, and they were setting up a tollbooth.
This was the story’s real plot twist.
The very place that gave the brand its name, its identity, and its aura of Southern authenticity had turned on it.1
The state of Kentucky was no longer just the setting of the story; it had become the antagonist, demanding tribute from its most famous fictional son.
A Standoff in Louisville: The Failed Negotiations
Faced with this unprecedented legal and financial assault, the executives at Kentucky Fried Chicken in Louisville did not capitulate immediately.
The company spent a full year—from 1990 to 1991—locked in tense negotiations with the state government.7
Their argument was simple and logical: it was patently absurd to demand a licensing fee for a name they had been using for decades, a name they themselves had trademarked and built into a global icon.
This year of conflict is the critical missing piece of the puzzle.
It perfectly explains the timing and the seemingly abrupt nature of the 1991 rebrand.
The official stories about health trends and diversification were ongoing concerns, but they lacked the urgency of a direct, time-sensitive threat.
The state’s ultimatum provided that urgency.
The negotiations failed.
The company was backed into an impossible corner with only two choices: pay a perpetual tax to its home state for the right to use its own name, or abandon that name forever.
The Name as a Liability: When an Asset Becomes a Weapon
The state’s action had a chilling effect that went far beyond fried chicken.
Nurseries that had sold “Kentucky Bluegrass” for generations suddenly began marketing “Shenandoah Bluegrass” to avoid the fee.7
For Kentucky Fried Chicken, the situation was catastrophic.
Their single greatest branding asset—the name that instantly communicated a specific, cherished origin and a promise of quality—had been weaponized against them by its very source.
The name was no longer an asset; it was a liability.
This was the core of the epiphany.
The name change was not primarily a proactive marketing move or a reaction to public myth.
It was a defensive maneuver against a direct legal and financial attack from an unexpected quarter.
The novelist was not creatively blocked; they were being extorted by their protagonist’s own hometown.
The decision to become “KFC” was not a choice; it was an escape.
To clarify the tangled web of narratives, the following table deconstructs the competing explanations, establishing the legal dispute as the definitive catalyst.
| Narrative Category | Core Claim | Primary Evidence/Source | Strategic Status |
| The Official Story (Public Relations) | To de-emphasize “Fried,” signal menu diversification, and modernize the brand. | KFC’s 1991 press statements; 1990s health/acronym trends.3 | Convenient Rationale: A valid but secondary set of factors, brilliantly used as a public-facing “smokescreen” to mask the primary driver. |
| The Urban Myth (Public Imagination) | Use of “mutant chickens” barred the legal use of the word “chicken.” | Viral emails, social media; debunked by Snopes, universities, and KFC lawsuits.15 | Debunked Hoax: A symptom of public distrust and a narrative vacuum created by a weak official story. |
| The Hidden Driver (Legal & Financial) | To avoid paying licensing fees after the Commonwealth of Kentucky trademarked its name in 1990. | Investigative reports (Snopes); records of the 1990 state trademark and failed negotiations.7 | Primary Catalyst: The confirmed, definitive trigger that forced the rebranding decision. |
Part IV: The Solution — The Protagonist’s Global Rewrite
Discovering the true antagonist and the forced nature of the name change was the epiphany, but the story doesn’t end there.
The final act is perhaps the most brilliant.
It reveals how the leadership at Kentucky Fried Chicken, faced with a crisis, did not simply retreat.
They masterfully leveraged the defensive necessity into a strategic opportunity, executing a global transformation that would define the brand for the next generation.
The novelist, forced to rewrite their hero, used the chance to create a stronger, more versatile, and more powerful protagonist for a new era.
The Birth of “KFC”: A Calculated Offensive
The company officially adopted the “KFC” acronym in March 1991.2
This was a calculated move.
The name was not new; it was already in wide colloquial use by the public, a shorthand that had naturally evolved over years.12
Instead of fighting this, the company embraced it, taking control of its own nickname and formalizing it as the new official identity.
This was accompanied by a complete and total overhaul of the brand’s visual identity.
A new logo was introduced, packaging was redesigned, and store layouts were modernized.7
This was not the action of a brand in retreat.
It was a pivot, a calculated offensive.
The legal threat from the Commonwealth of Kentucky provided the impetus for change, the non-negotiable deadline.
But it was the vision of the leadership team, then under President Kyle Craig, that turned the moment into a catalyst for a long-overdue modernization.2
They recognized that if they were being forced to change the title of their book, they might as well redesign the cover and update the contents at the same time.
A Global Passport: Shedding the Regional Skin
The most significant long-term benefit of this forced rewrite was its impact on global expansion.
As the brand pushed aggressively into international markets, particularly in Asia and Europe, the full name “Kentucky Fried Chicken” was proving to be a handicap.
It was linguistically cumbersome for non-English speakers and its specific regional association with a U.S. state was often less meaningful or even confusing to a global audience.4
The acronym “KFC,” by contrast, was a perfect global passport.
It is simple, graphic, memorable, and culturally agnostic.4
It shed the brand’s regional American skin, allowing it to be adopted and localized far more easily in diverse cultures.
This strategic shift was instrumental in the brand’s explosive international growth.
Today, China is KFC’s single largest market, a feat that would have been far more difficult to achieve under the old, geographically-bound name.23
The novelist, by giving their protagonist a new, universal name, had equipped them to become a bestseller in every country on Earth, no longer tied to a specific, and now legally fraught, hometown.
The Holistic Redesign: More Than Just a Name
The 1991 rebrand demonstrates a crucial principle of successful brand strategy: change cannot be superficial.
The name change was merely the anchor for a total brand transformation.24
The 1991 logo redesign was a milestone.
It simplified the iconic portrait of Colonel Sanders, making it more graphic, and set it against a dynamic background of red and white stripes, evoking a sense of American heritage while feeling modern and energetic.9
This was just the beginning of a continuous evolution.
Further redesigns in 1997 and 2014 continued the journey toward a more minimalist, clean, and globally adaptable identity.9
The core strategy was a brilliant balancing act: preserving the essential heritage of the brand—the instantly recognizable face of Colonel Sanders—while wrapping it in a modern, streamlined package represented by the acronym and clean design.9
This holistic approach ensured that the change felt comprehensive and intentional, signaling a true evolution of the brand across every touchpoint, from the sign on the highway to the bucket on the dinner table.
This crisis ultimately forced a level of strategic discipline on the company that may have been absent before.
Large, successful corporations often suffer from a powerful inertia that makes fundamental changes, like altering a famous name, incredibly difficult to execute.
The legal threat from Kentucky acted as an external shock, a non-negotiable event that shattered the inertia and forced decisive action.
This created a unique opportunity for the leadership to bundle the “must-do” (change the name to escape the licensing fee) with a series of “should-dos” (modernize the aging brand image, create a name better suited for global expansion, and signal a more diverse menu).
The antagonist’s attack, therefore, inadvertently made the protagonist stronger, more focused, and better prepared for the future.
The crisis became the catalyst for a more disciplined and forward-looking brand strategy.
Conclusion: The Enduring Colonel and the Power of a Three-Letter Story
The final chapter in this brand saga is one of ultimate victory and control.
In 2006, after years of operating as KFC, the company and the Commonwealth of Kentucky finally settled their long-standing dispute.
The brand was once again free to use its full, original name, “Kentucky Fried Chicken,” without the threat of a licensing fee.7
What happened next is a testament to the success of the 1991 gambit.
The company did not revert.
Instead, having firmly established “KFC” as its powerful, primary global identity, it began to strategically reintroduce the “Kentucky Fried Chicken” name as a heritage asset.26
In certain marketing campaigns, on retro-themed packaging, and at select outlets, the full name reappeared.
It was no longer a liability, but a tool—a way to evoke nostalgia, authenticity, and the brand’s deep history whenever it served the current strategy.
This is not a reversal, but a demonstration of complete narrative control.
The novelist, having successfully rewritten their protagonist for the modern world, is now free to release “classic editions” that honor the original, confident that the hero’s new, more versatile identity is secure.
The story of the KFC name change offers several profound and enduring lessons for any brand steward:
- Narrative Control is Paramount: A brand must own its story. The KFC case is a masterclass in how a weak or inauthentic official narrative creates a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by public myth or speculation. The initial PR story was a necessary smokescreen, but the persistence of the “mutant chicken” legend proves the danger of a story that doesn’t fully align with reality.
- Crises are Catalysts: External shocks and threats, while painful, can be powerful catalysts for change. The legal attack from the state of Kentucky forced an evolution that was not only necessary for survival but was ultimately beneficial, driving a level of strategic discipline and modernization that might have taken years to achieve otherwise.
- Heritage vs. Evolution is a False Choice: The most successful brands do not choose between their history and their future. They find a strategic balance where heritage is used to inform and authenticate modernity. KFC’s ability to retain the iconic image of Colonel Sanders while adopting a modern acronym and design is a perfect example of this synthesis.
Ultimately, the saga of KFC is a powerful testament to the art of brand stewardship.
It teaches us that the most enduring brand stories are not static relics.
They are living narratives that must be constantly, and sometimes ruthlessly, rewritten to meet the challenges and opportunities of the moment.
It shows us how a master storyteller can turn an antagonist into a catalyst, a plot hole into a blockbuster sequel, and a three-word title into a three-letter legend.
Works cited
- The Real Reason Why KFC Changed Its Name – YouTube, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I93W_OCXsdA
- History of KFC – Wikipedia, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_KFC
- medium.com, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://medium.com/@Breadarose/what-is-the-history-behind-the-kfc-name-change-from-kentucky-fried-chicken-to-kfc-efeb3a9cc346#:~:text=In%20the%201990s%2C%20there%20was,items%20beyond%20just%20fried%20chicken.
- What is the history behind the KFC name change from “Kentucky …, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://medium.com/@Breadarose/what-is-the-history-behind-the-kfc-name-change-from-kentucky-fried-chicken-to-kfc-efeb3a9cc346
- TIL: Kentucky Fried Chicken rebranded to KFC to avoid paying licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. : r/todayilearned – Reddit, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/a52h8s/til_kentucky_fried_chicken_rebranded_to_kfc_to/
- Kentucky Fried Chicken becomes KFC – Australian food timeline, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/kentucky-becomes-kfc/
- The Real Reason Why KFC Changed Their Name – Mashed, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.mashed.com/151782/the-real-reason-why-kfc-changed-their-name/
- Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC): A Global Success Story in Fast Food | by Rana Muqeet, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://medium.com/@ranamuqeet9810/kentucky-fried-chicken-kfc-a-global-success-story-in-fast-food-82858025e454
- Tracing the Transformation of KFC’s Logo: Blending Heritage with …, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.hatchwise.com/resources/kfc-logo-history
- 14 Acronyms Every Marketer Should Know – Criteo, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.criteo.com/blog/acronyms-every-marketer-should-know/
- TIL The name of mid-90s fad, “Pogs” was actually an acronym for Passion/Orange/Guava, which was the type of juice that kids used the caps of when it was first invented in Hawaii – Reddit, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/hy6q3b/til_the_name_of_mid90s_fad_pogs_was_actually_an/
- Rebranding in motion: 5 famous brands that changed their names – Agility PR Solutions, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.agilitypr.com/pr-news/branding-reputation/rebranding-in-motion-5-famous-brands-that-changed-their-names/
- Famous Brands That Changed Their Names – Threerooms, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.threerooms.com/blog/famous-brands-that-changed-their-names
- Why All of Those Horrifying Urban Legends About KFC Just Won’t Die – VICE, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.vice.com/en/article/urban-legends-kfc-mutant-chickens-fried-rat-fastfoodweek2017/
- Why KFC is not called “Kentucky Fried Chicken” anymore – AP Human Geography, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://aphg2015mhs.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/unit5_aphg_commodity_chains.pdf
- KFC’s Mutant Chickens Threaten World Domination! – Nuketown, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.nuketown.com/kfcs-mutant-chickens-threaten-world-domination/
- KFC’s “superchicken” : r/NoStupidQuestions – Reddit, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/kelkwf/kfcs_superchicken/
- The KFC Mutant Chicken Urban Legend Which Made My Photoshopped Image Famous, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://artofericwayne.com/2016/02/12/the-kfc-mutant-chicken-urban-legend-which-made-my-photoshopped-image-famous/
- KFC Has Won a Lawsuit Against Claims It Breeds ‘Mutant Chickens’ – VICE, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.vice.com/en/article/kfc-has-shot-down-a-lawsuit-claiming-it-breeds-mutant-chickens/
- Why KFC Stopped Using “Kentucky” In Their Name (EXPLAINED) – YouTube, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uKMDq7qzUQI
- Why did the state of Kentucky trade mark the name Kentucky? : r …, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/10nefyn/why_did_the_state_of_kentucky_trade_mark_the_name/
- TIL – KFC’s name change was due to the fact that it did not want to pay royalties to the state of Kentucky. : r/todayilearned – Reddit, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/976rw/til_kfcs_name_change_was_due_to_the_fact_that_it/
- History of KFC: The Recipe Behind The Finger Lickin’ Taste – The USA Leaders, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://theusaleaders.com/blog/history-of-kfc/
- How to Rebrand a Company While Honoring Its Legacy – Brand Audit Services, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://brandauditors.com/blog/how-to-rebrand-a-company/
- Proven Rebranding Strategies for Your Professional Services Firm – Hinge Marketing, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://hingemarketing.com/blog/story/rebranding_strategies_a_step_by_step_approach_for_professional_services
- KFC | The Remarkable Leader, accessed on August 6, 2025, https://remarkableleader.wordpress.com/tag/kfc/
