Change is necessary for a growing brand.

Two recent and dramatic examples of change are Google’s visual revamping of nearly all of its major services and Facebook’s introduction of the Timeline.

Google’s approach was to create a more elegant, proprietary visual system which is undeniably minimalistic (yet Trevor Filter, even, has expressed suspicion as to whether the revamping actually helps clarify Google’s communications or conversely, further conceals them). Facebook’s introduction of the Timeline is a calculated effort to create a single hub/archive of one’s existence online. Now users can view a curated version of their pasts—as well as their friends’ pasts—using this new system.

The changes made by Google and Facebook not only helped further develop their service offerings, but advanced designs that fit their core visual systems and brand promises.

Were these changes met with admiration? By some, sure. But many users were outraged because it didn’t matter if the changes resulted in a simpler customer experience or made the site more functional. The backlash stemmed from the fact that what was once familiar was no longer as familiar. For a multitude of reasons, many people are diametrically opposed to change—particularly when it affects something that has become a part of their daily routine.

Take the “comments” section of brand review sites such as Brand New. After viewing a rebranding, readers often complain about the new look and feel. “It was fine how it was,” they say, or, “Why fix what isn’t broken?” While this point of view may be valid in a few cases, the changes often result in an improved experience for the end-user that strategically strengthens the brand.

So how can companies implement change without fomenting mass disapproval, or worse? I think by incorporating three things: transparency, clarity and deliberate action.

Companies should act more deliberately but with greater transparency. Let users know ahead of time exactly what is changing, why it is changing and when it is changing. That’s fair and preferable to a sudden and unexpected site/experience. Spend time and effort to guide your users through new features and clearly communicate their purpose.

(As a counterpoint, think about The Netflix/Qwikster flip-flop—an extreme example of how a poorly communicated change can harm a company.)

So remember, customers are easily seduced by the comfort of consistency, even if the experience is poor or counterintuitive. And they’re wired to balk at change. It’s wise to avoid the pitfalls of “loose” change by taking the time to develop a strategic plan of implementation.

Mike Tyson is a designer for the Siegel+Gale New York office.