The Microhoo that never was
Back in the mid 1980s a young red-cheeked geek decided to turn his hobby into a company which he named Micro-Soft. That geek was Bill Gates. The brand name was meant to suggest a company devoted to microcomputer software. By 1987 the hyphen was dropped but the name Microsoft rose to climb into international consciousness.
A few years later (1994-‘95) two self deprecating Stanford University graduates, Jerry Yang and David Filo, planned a web portal and search engine company. Jerry and Filo considered themselves “yahoos” a term coined by Jonathan Swift in his book, Gulliver’s Travels. It represented a person repulsive in appearance and barely human. “Yahoo”was also associated with United States Southerners' and Westerners' expression of joy. Impishly they named their company venture “Yahoo!”
Thirteen years on the proud parents of both concerns announced the planned birth of a new organisation born of a proud heritage. If it would have gone ahead, the new partnership between Microsoft and Yahoo wouldn’t necessarily mean a totally new brand name over the front door for the blushing couple.
For one thing that could spell trouble in terms of each of brand’s standing and feeling amongst customers and stakeholders. For another it would have turned out to be an excessively expensive exercise, not just in terms of printing new stationery, but changing public perceptions.
Then of course, there were other issues for each set of ‘parents’.
Which name comes first?
Which name - if any is dropped?
How would a new name translate?
Should both names be dropped in favour of a completely new ID and so wipe out all the hard work that went before hand into building brand profiles and credibility?
Brand naming specialists adopt several classical approaches when resolving such contentious issues including:
One brand retaining its own name (Bell Atlantic over NYNEX)
Combining both brand names (PricewaterhouseCoopers)
Devising an entirely new brand name ( MicroYah?)
Of all options, the completely new name alternative is the most daring, often fraught and habitually pricey.
Price Waterhouse Coopers tried that approach by changing its name to Monday. It was a disaster. (Sir Bob Geldoff could have warned them that not too many people like Mondays).
Some brand names change to distract attention from previous embarrassments or mishaps. Take as an example the Cumbrian nuclear site formerly known as “Windscale”. Following a severe fire in 1957, in which massive amounts of radioactive energy were released, the site was re-branded “Sellafield”. However public fears over its safety lingered.
Another name change provoked by adversity was when in 1989 Exxon’s supertanker, the ‘Exxon Valdez’ leaked thousands of tons of oil off the coast of Alaska, ruining 25,000 km of the local eco-system. The company eventually re-named the ship Sear River Mediterranean. (Which gave the sense of sun tan oil rather than crude oil slicks).
A further classic case was the notorious GM food brand, Monsanto. At its height of notoriety, hardly a week passed that the company wasn’t criticized in the press for its genetic food engineering experiments. The company changed the name to Pharmacia Corporation, although "Monsanto" was retained for its autonomous agricultura. (Phizer eventually bought Pharmacia Corp).
Sometimes brands change names simply because they have no other choice. In 1991 Ratners the jewelers was a thriving business selling inexpensive popular jewelery. That year the company’s chairman, Gerald Ratner was invited to deliver a speech at a business conference. Gerald had a reputation for being an insightful, yet witty speaker. The speech went well until Gerald decided to crack a joke about his company’s products… “We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?" I say, because it's total crap.” The audience gasped at the confession. He then went on to make matters worst remarking that some of the earrings were "cheaper than a Marks and Spencer prawn sandwich, but probably wouldn't last as long."
Few shared his sense of humour. The two-word gaff virtually killed off any remaining goodwill the brand name may still had with consumers and investors.
Another brand name change of shame occurred when in 2001 when the UK Post Office Group decided to reposition itself. Research at the time suggested that the brand name was associated with words such as, trust, honour and valour (delivering the post in all weathers). However there was also a lot of confusion about the roles of its different division such as Royal Mail, post offices and Parcel Force. The company’s managers felt that the organisation needed to be positioned as a public limited company which would operate at arm’s length from its sole shareholder - the UK government.
The name was altered to Consignia. The branding agency responsible for the change said,” It’s got consign in it. It’s got a link with insignia, so there is this kind of royalty-ish thing.” The name change cost the Post Office a regal sum of £1m in modifying stationery, signage and so on. It also cost them their credibility. Ordinary users of the Post Office simply didn’t understand why the name had to change at all. Most believed it dealt a blow to British heritage and spelt the ominous end of local government-run community post offices to big corporate giants. Some were confused of its actual meaning. (In Spanish, “consignia” meant lost luggage). To compound issues, the brand amendment coincided with industrial disputes and fierce competition. (The company reported a record £281m loss for the six months to November 2001).
Like all planning, changing a brand’s name isn’t something to be taken lightly. It needs to be explained to those who matter. For a brand that includes the public such as customers - probably through advertising and PR. Also any change in terms of working culture needs to be communicated in advance to the workforce and stakeholders.
Above all, the one time never to change a brand name is when the organisation is having to deal with business-critical issues such as battling competitors or dealing with industrial disputes.
Microhoo never quite made it but whenever that happens, any brand name change can be mistaken for the equivalent of using a plaster to heal a broken leg.