8/23/02
Seven Instances to Consider a Business Name Change

Globally speaking, every hour of every day, a major corporation is forced to change its name, according to Naseem Javed, syndicated columnist and author of Naming for Power. Here are seven reasons when to seriously consider a name change:

1. Name is similar or identical to thousands of others.
   
   
2. Name is too old to convey today?s dynamics.
   
   
3. The creative spelling of a name requires a higher IQ.
   
   
4. More money is spent in explaining the origin of a name.
   
   
5. Corporation does not own a trademark with an identical dot.com.
   
   
6. Name is embarrassing or profane in a foreign language.
   
   
7. Name is too long, difficult, confusing, complicated or boring.

Comments

I'm a firm believer that names carry power. A well-chosen brand name may have both a cognitive and an emotional impact upon consumer perceptions. As retail chains grow and prosper, a brand that may have been acceptable in a local market may appear ill-chosen in the context of the larger stage.

Large companies sometimes change their names at significant expense -- think back to Esso's transformation into Exxon. Consistent or evolutionary visual imagery, logos or slogans can help the consumer track the transition without confusion, preserving brand equity.

Finally, this is an instance where it pays to advertise: Tell the consumer what you are about to change; tell them when you change it; and remind them afterwards that it has been changed. [James Tenser - RW Commentators]

While some companies certainly should change their names, having helped with two corporate and two trade association name changes, I can tell you this is no easy task. First there is the creation of the new name. Then there is the planning and execution of the name change program. This process covers everything from creating logos and tag lines to developing a detailed media plan. Then you sort of sit and wait to see if it takes. Ultimately, they almost always do, but the program's success is measured in the time it takes for people to stop calling the company by the old name. [Ron Margulis - RW Commentators]

As a PR consultant for the retail sector, I can tell based on my experience that maybe a name is not so directly connected to it´s "distinct market identity". I think it is the combination between services and pricing policy through the company's history that will build the image of a supermarket chain in the public's mind. There are local cases in my home country (Argentina) that prove so. For instance, "disco" that is the abbreviation of "distribuidora de comestibles" (food distributor) - and by the way a recently Ahold acquisition - has built an image of quality and services despite the pricing policy and it's name has nothing to do with it. Another case is "Coto" which is the surname of the owner of the company and has no relation with being cheap or expensive. The image of being a cheap place for buying food is based on the pricing policy that they've been practicing for the last 25 years. I hope I made my point. [Romina Paciarotti - BrainTrust]

All the wisdom above notwithstanding, what's in a name? If I owned a company today, I would love to call it Wal-Mart. [Gene Hoffman - BrainTrust]

This should be one of the toughest decisions that a company makes. Its also one of the most expensive decisions that any company can make. Taking a decision like this lightly or on a whim from a Marketing Consultant can be costly and damaging.

Inevitably when a customer becomes familiar with a name, they continue to refer to the company as such even when a name is changed. I still call my bank by its original name even though its been changed three times. The same holds true with my cellular phone company which has transformed names at a lightening pace. Hospitals have had many name transitions as well, and the communities still refer to them by their original names no matter how many changes. Its interesting as the old names never appear anywhere in print or signs, just in the vernacular.

Diamler-Chrysler performed the most miraculous name change I have ever seen. Street signs, trucks, plant signs, etc. All done on the exact day of the completion of the takeover! However, who calls their Mini-Van a Diamler? No one!

Names have real geographic and community significance. They are what create loyalty in the first place. They build reputations, and hold lost reputations as well. Thus the phrase, "I'll stake my name on it".

Be careful with your name. It may be the only thing you have that creates real identity and brings your customers through the doors. [Scanner]

There are many reasons to consider name changes and a raft of "identity specialists" have cropped up, creating a little cottage industry for naming.

Sometimes, translations force name changes. A beverage like Sierra Mist has a lovely connotation in the U.S., but not so in Germany where mist means manure. The same goes for the Chinese company whose name translated into White Elephant Auto Parts. The list goes on.

But this is not a decision to be made lightly. For one thing, the cost of a name change can run from $100,000 into the millions. Additionally, brand names, even bad ones, have a certain brand equity which can easily be lost. In fact, some industry insiders believe that Philip Morris' attempt to distance itself from Big Tobacco by changing its name to Altria may have created some negative feelings among consumers due to the transparency of the move.

On the plus side, name changes are often embraced by Wall Street as a sign that a company has bigger fish to fry and that new strategic endeavors are in the offing.

In the end, don't put your trust in consumer focus groups. As someone told me recently: "you're putting the future of your brand in the hands of people who give up their time for $45 and stale sandwich." [Len Lewis - BrainTrust]

Retail operations are identified with their geographic location and a change of ownership or name change has to fight that position in the local customers' minds. My favorite example: a spot on a busy main drag, along the Jersey shore. Names and ownership of a particular corner bar/restaurant changed like the tides of seasonal shore traffic. The one that finally took hold and has prospered their now for many seasons..."Used To Be's Tavern". [Rick Moss - RW Commentators]

Much of the publicity surrounding name changes is derived from mockery of the new name, astonishment at the amount of money spent to implement that change and bemusement that it was thought necessary in the first place. Examples that instantly spring to mind - Arthur Andersen's consulting division became Accenture, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (just before they decided to sell it to IBM) had decided to call their consultancy arm Monday. A certain American conglomerate that wanted to distance itself from its tobacco history is another. One of our mobile phone companies has re-christened itself O2. There are loads more. In all of those cases, I think the company name was very important both before and after and there were probably good reasons for changing. But one which I am anxiously watching is a new company over here, Ocado, which is a joint venture between the John Lewis Partnership, whose grocery arm is called Waitrose, and a logistics company whose name I can't even remember. Considering that Ocado is in direct competition with Tesco and Sainsbury, and hopes to grab much of their customer base as it rolls out nationwide, it seems to me that they really should have used the Waitrose name which is well known and highly respected. Sacrificing it so that they don't overwhelm their lesser known partner seems, from an outside perspective, to be a little bit too altruistic. As a Waitrose, and grocery e-commerce fan, I would like to see Ocado succeed and hope that they are right and I am wrong. I think the company name really does matter. [Bernice Hurst - RW Commentators]

Print
This
Discussion
---

Email This
Discussion
---

See Related Discussions
(108)