Brand New World

When Moss Bros announced last week that it was hiring McCann-Erickson to help shake off its stuffy image, it joined a long list of companies that have called in the brand consultants to give them a new lease of life and, in many cases, a new identity.

The high street menswear retailer plans to rebrand the majority of its Suit Company, Savoy Taylors Guild and Blazer stores under the new name of Code.

The newly branded stores will offer fashionable casual clothing for 25to 45-year-olds who are increasingly dressing down at work.

Rebranding seems to be all the rage. Everyone is at it from household cleaners to chocolate bars. Even an institution such as the Post Office has changed its corporate name to Consignia – amid widespread criticism – to reflect its international aspirations.

In the Eighties we ate Marathons and Opal Fruits, shopped at Chelsea Girl and bought our grannies Oil of Ulay. Now we have Snickers, Starburst, River Island and Oil of Olay.

Leading the change

While the US leads the world in name-changing, the UK is in first place in Europe with 250 switches in 1999, according to a survey by brand consultancy Enterprise IG.

The survey showed that in 2000, just over half of all name changes internationally were due to mergers and acquisitions. However, 37 per cent were just for the sake of it.

Even those that daren’t go the whole hog and change the name of a well-known brand, are overhauling their images in an effort to relaunch themselves as younger and trendier brands.

Burberry and French Connection have re-invented themselves in recent years with resounding success. Such successes have prompted others, notably Marks & Spencer and Austin Reed – which has rebranded its stores AR – to follow suit.

At the end of last year, Unilever spent £2m on changing one letter of the UK’s best-selling household cleaner. Jif became Cif, to bring it in line with the rest of the world and so create a global brand.

But in a competitive market, where brand loyalty is increasingly important, spending millions of pounds on rebranding a popular, albeit slightly outdated, product can be a gamble.

Cynicism about name changes, as in the cases of Consignia and Andersen Consulting’s new identity Accenture, is running high. So, how do you ensure that rebranding is money well spent and that the result is a hit with the notoriously fickle consumer?

According to Charlie Wrench, managing director of brand consultancy Landor, there are three main reasons for rebranding an organisation or product. He cites: merger and acquisitions – as in the case of CGU which became CGNU after its merger with Norwich Union; creating a global brand – as in Cif or Snickers – thereby cutting packaging and advertising costs; or, like Moss Bros, making an outdated brand more relevant to the target market.

Brand consultants agree there has to be a good reason for rebranding and that, in the case of an organisation, the process has to reach all levels. It is not enough to change the name and the logo if the strategic direction of the company remains the same.

IG Enterprise chairman Terry Tyrrell, of , says: “The main thing is to avoid the ‘lipstick on gorilla’ effect: it is not just a cosmetic exercise. Retailers, especially, are very fickle. If something is not working they will put a new logo up and launch a new ad campaign and call it rebranding.”

Jonathan Hall, deputy managing director of CLK, which was involved with the branding and launch of CGNU, agrees: “You need to understand where an organisation is going and what its commercial and strategic ambitions are. There has to be a fundamental shift on all levels. There is no point changing a name if the environment stays the same.”

Effective communication

Hall stresses that when communicating the change and the reasons behind it, it is vital that all agencies involved in the rebranding process “sing from the same song sheet”.

“Consignia is a prime example of a rebranding where the communication has not been effective. So many people were left thinking it was renaming the retail outlets as Consignia when, in fact, it was changing the name of the holding company.

“It seems to be all about ‘gloss’. It has not really got to grips with what the organisation is about or where it wants to go,” adds Hall.

He thinks that negative publicity about a name change such as Consignia or Accenture can hamper the long-term prospects of a brand.

“I think it is very damaging. A name like Accenture, which in my opinion is not a good name, can hamper an organisation’s communications vehicle,” says Hall.

Landor’s Wrench, who was involved with the rebranding of Andersen Consulting as Accenture, thinks consumers and the media place too much importance on name changes.

“I have no doubt that Accenture will be a household name in three years. People don’t question brand names like IBM because they have been around for years. I am sure that in a year’s time everyone will have forgotten the debacle surrounding the name change,” he says.

But while the public is fairly at ease with organisations rebranding because they are changing direction, ditching a well-known brand is a different matter .

Increasingly companies are looking at creating global brands, in order to cut production costs, aid brand recognition and achieve economies of scale in terms of advertising.

Tyrrell thinks that changing the names of well-known brands such as Marathon or Jif worked because the switch was communicated to the consumer through major ad campaigns but the packaging design remained virtually the same.

“When Marathon changed to Snickers a lot of people worried that changing such a well-known brand was going to have a devastating effect on sales. But, because the packaging remained the same, there was no real downturn. It demonstrates the power of the visual design over the name,” says Tyrrell.

For all the right reasons

While rebranding a popular product can be a good excuse to launch an ad campaign to remind consumers of how great it is, Wrench warns against being too effusive.

“What you are doing is trying to ensure that you don’t lose any of your original customers. It is very much a defensive exercise, where you tell your customers the name is going to change for certain reasons, but the product will remain exactly the same,” says Tyrrell.

“It is not about elevating the product. Although in some cases, as for example when Mars changed the name of Opal Fruits to Starburst, it is an opportunity not only to align the brand globally, but to refresh it,” he adds.

But, changing the name of a well-loved product can backfire, as Kellogg found when it changed the name of its Coco-Pops two years ago.

The cereal giant rebranded Coco-Pops as Choco Krispies, in alignment with its pan-European market. However, it was forced to revert to Coco-Pops after sales plummeted and a telephone poll in the UK revealed that consumers were overwhelmingly in favour of the old name.

“We found that with a kids’ brand like Coco-Pops, which is a brand that attracts a huge amount of loyalty and affection, UK consumers felt very uncomfortable about the name change,” says Guy Longthorn, marketing director at Kellogg.

“In a fragmented society people can become very emotionally attached to brands, as they offer reassurance and stability. A brand such as Coco-Pops, which reminds people of their childhood, can act like an anchor in your life.”

While changing the name of a brand such as Coca-Cola may not make commercial sense, brands have to evolve to stay relevant.

“Brands are not static entities. You have to know where you want to be in three years’ time and move there today. There is no point defining yourself by today if you want to stay ahead. There is nothing wrong with changing a name if it no longer reflects the purpose of the organisation or products,” says Wrench.

However, Tyrrell warns against rebranding for the sake of it: “Many organisations make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They ditch the old brand and heritage even though it may be important and run the risk of alienating customers and losing direction.

“You have to have a reason to rebrand. It’s an incredible investment to promote a new product or organisation. If you don’t have a good strategic reason, my advice is don’t do it.”