Comments on: The true cost of rebranding?

By: David Airey

David Airey — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:02:41 +0000

Lee, I agree with your comment about lipstick on a pig, but when one company merges with another, causing the name, visual appearance, and most likely goals to change, the brand will also change (not just the brand identity, as you’re referring to). When you consider that a customer’s experience with a company is part of the brand, I can’t imagine the experience with Norwich Union will be exactly the same as that with Aviva. And I’m sure the 4,000 employees who got the boot will agree (although I realise it’s not guaranteed these job losses wouldn’t have happened without the merger).

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:43:30 +0000

Lee, design and graphics are useless on the radio. Every element has it’s value, none more than other.

Amusing that generally the definition of re-branding ( here) is changing the logo. If there is something wrong with the brand a new logo is like putting lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day it’s still a pig.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Hello Lee,

I particularly like this contribution of yours:

I’d argue that design and graphics are more important than a name. A name is a bit like pasta. Often boring on it’s own, but add some sauce and it’s unique and appetising.

It’s been a while. I hope you enjoyed any festive holiday you were able to take.

By: lee newham

lee newham — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:57:01 +0000

• Jif cleaner became Cif. The graphics stayed the same and sales didn’t suffer.
• Marathon bars became Snickers. The graphics stayed the same and sales didn’t suffer.
• Midland bank became HSBC. They changed the graphics first, then changed the name.

So what’s in a name anyway? If you recognize it s the previous product, it tastes the same as the previous product then do you really care that the name has changed? Does this mean that the branding, the GRAPHICS are more important than the name? After all, consumers recognize WAY before they read a brand.

• Brand names get swallowed up and disappear. In the UK Austin, Morris, Riley, Rover, Wolseley, Triumph, BSA, Woolworths, Timothy Whites, Lagonda, Vanden Plas. Only MG survived and that was gone for many years. How many people miss the passing of these names? I have nostalgic memories for some of these, but in reality, has it made may life worse not being surrounded by these names?

I’d argue that design and graphics are more important than a name. A name is a bit like pasta. Often boring on it’s own, but add some sauce and it’s unique and appetising.

By: Babu

Babu — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:23:41 +0000

The word VIVA has its roots in Latin vīvere (to live, from dictionary.com)
Which i guess would make AVIVA a bad name for a life insurance company…or perhaps the best name

By: David Airey

David Airey — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:33:47 +0000

Kenny,

I have similar thoughts on what this reminds me of. Thanks for commenting.

Jennifer,

Hmmm, must’ve missed that Pepsi post of yours, and appreciate you referring to it. The short post I published on Logo Design Love brought very mixeds review — mostly negative.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:27:22 +0000

I’ve seen the ad a few times on tv now and they must have spent a fortune on the famous folk. They make it seem like a much “cooler” or glamourous company than just a boring (albeit massive) insurance company. So maybe that means it’s successful??

I wrote a short post looking at the rebranding and changes in the Pepsi logo last year – http://laughingliondesign.net/2008/10/16/new-pepsi-logo/

By: Kenny

Kenny — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:19:53 +0000

Frankly, I don’t think NU could have chosen a worse time to do this. In these uncertain times, people need comfort and familiarity. Add to that the financial cost of running the adverts on top of the money already spent on re-branding and it begins to look even more risky. I have to say it reminds me more of the Post Office Consignia disaster and Arthur Anderson changing to Accenture, than it does of Midland becoming HSBC.
From a UK perspective, I think that the problem with the PO re-brand was that Consignia was meaningless to most of us, and I fear the same for Aviva.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:10:47 +0000

Paul,

I’m looking forward to your new design, and hope it all works out as you hope.

Valentino,

Not off-topic at all. A valid point, in fact (how the Beatles were successful for their music — not the personal names of each band member).

Jonathan, Peter, Richard,

Thanks for commenting, guys.

Johan,

Your localised example is very similar to what happened with the Post Office here in the UK, and it wasn’t long before the ‘big wigs’ took a u-turn.

It is interesting to read the different opinions, and I appreciate you adding to them.

Mig,

I believe the fact that Aviva may seem easier to remember doesn’t make much of a difference. Especially when almost half the UK population are already customers of Norwich Union.

Aviva is the name abroad, certainly, but only for a few years — compared to more than 200 years here. I do, however, hope the huge cash outlay proves successful.

Abbas,

I noticed the strapline on the Norwich Union logo, and believe it was around a year back when it was first introduced (don’t quote me on that).

To be honest, I’m not too familiar with the success of Midland Bank’s change. The one major difference between the two examples was the huge brand that HSBC already was prior to the switch — HSBC being established in 1865, long before Midland Bank, whereas Aviva is just a few years old.

By: Johan

Johan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:43 +0000

Interesting to see how there seem to be two opinions; those who welcome the change and see this as a fresh start with a more modern brand and those who don’t like the idea of throwing away the comforting feeling of a long trusted brand. I think I am part of the second group. Let’s see who will be right.