I'll say it before vidiot comes in here and says it (I happen to agree)
the rebranding is about presenting the appearance of "mainstreaming", whilst keeping the internal policies unchanged.
I think in most cases where you have leadership by committee, you'll see some degree of mixed messages coming through, so that may be a part of it as well. I think GB 2.0 is much more in the loop as to what's really going on than their predecessors, (even if they don't realize it and consider themselves to be true believers) so they're inevitably going to be more manipulative about presenting a great facade for the org while leaving the insides rotten. I think it all started with the public/study WT split - at least for me that seems to have been the beginning of their efforts to put on a good face for the public while keeping the true policies as harsh as ever.