 |
 |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers' (PWC) decision to rebrand itself under the name "Monday" attracted a lot of attention - mostly hoots of derision. Their Chief Executive said the firm chose the name, at a cost of around £70 million, because it's a real word (which caused "stuff and nonsense " - three real words - to spring to mind) and went on "Our new name is exactly what we want it to be as we create our new business - a real word, concise, recognizable, global and the right fit for a company that works hard to deliver". Leaving aside the fact that "FedEx" is a better fit for a company that works hard to deliver, this does seem to imbue "Monday" with qualities - they say it signifies a "new beginning" - that aren't totally apparent when I drag myself into work after a heavy weekend where "slightly hungover and tetchy" might be more appropriate (though the resulting acronym would be unfortunate). |
According to the Independent, this is all part of a rebranding trend that costs British companies over £100 million a year even without the expense of their new signs, stationery, brochures, buying up similar names etc. - PWC had to pay £3million to buy the name, One Monday, from a PR company. Sadly, 75% of the time, rebranding has the unfortunate side effect of damaging your share price not least because our media is highly scornful of high profile identity changes. Apart from the often ludicrous cost, brand names can mean whatever you want them to mean - and what you want might not be the meaning other people attach to the moniker, particularly in the global market place.
The other problem is that companies talk "rebranding" but think "renaming" - i.e. make a great hullabaloo about the new name but do exactly nothing to make anything else about the company change at all. Consignia spent many millions on dropping the Royal Mail name but, as first class post continued to arrive as if delivered by a snail on a go slow, it was never going to work.
