Brand Failures
Brand Failures Brand Failures
206 Brand failures There is a wise logic behind such thinking. After all, many companies have come unstuck as time moves on and their name is no longer relevant. For instance, Carphone Warehouse may have once imagined a world full of consumers waiting to upgrade their carphones, but the reality is that now most people wouldn’t recognize a carphone if it hit them over the head. And other brands have managed to create very successful identities with brand names that have no direct relevance to their products, or anyone else’s products for that matter. This is especially true on the Internet. While selfdescriptive brands such as Letsbuyit.com and Pets.com flopped, vague and mysterious brand names such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo! have worked exceptionally well. Indeed, many of the largest brands in the world follow this model. To take the most obvious example, no-one who spends their money via Richard Branson’s company expects to take home a real virgin, any more than people buying books at Amazon expect to be transported to a tropical rainforest. These names are about evocation. They are about the identity of the brand, not the product. Before the Post Office, many other British institutions had also tried to bring themselves into the new millennium. British Steel had become ‘Corus’ following its merger with Koninklijke Hoogovens. ‘Centrica’ was a former arm of British Gas. ‘Thus’ was the new name given to the telecoms division of Scottish Power. The list goes on and on. So what was the name given to the Post Office On 9 January 2002, the group’s chief executive, John Roberts, stood outside his organization’s headquarters and declared that the name was Consignia. This name, he added, was ‘modern, meaningful and entirely appropriate’ to the rapidly evolving organization. Dragon Brand’s Keith Wells was equally happy with Consignia. ‘It’s got consign in it. It’s got a link with insignia, so there is this kind of royalty-ish thing in the back of one’s mind,’ he explained to the BBC. ‘And there’s this lovely dictionary definition of consign which is “to entrust to the care of.” That goes right back to sustaining trust, which was very, very important.’ In addition, the name change had been approved by the controversial government minister Stephen Byers, who was at that time the trade secretary. The reaction from the media and the general public was considerably less sympathetic. Some thought it sounded like a new brand of aftershave or deodorant. Others thought it was the name of an electricity company. The BBC’s Web site referred to ‘the most notorious ever Post Office robbery – that
Rebranding failures 207 of the name itself.’ The Web site also asked the British public to e-mail their opinions of the name. Their responses were almost unanimously critical of the re-brand. ‘Consignia doesn’t sound like the national institution that the Royal Mail does. Instead, it reminds me of that brand of anti-perspirant, called Insignia,’ wrote one. ‘It’s a poor excuse to say that Royal Mail could be confusing when it takes a paragraph to explain what Consignia means,’ wrote another. One respondent e-mailed in with his tongue firmly in cheek saying that ‘given the current crisis within the Post Office, Consignia Plc seems like an excellent name. It is an anagram of Panic Closing.’ Soon it became clear that the name change was not having a positive effect. Although the Post Office had shifted to become a plc, the public still felt it belonged to them. If they didn’t like the new name, they therefore felt it was their right to be angry. As the Post Office’s corporate performance started to falter, the name was blamed even more. ‘The name got muddied with the comments that business is doing appallingly – this idea that nothing had been the same since the name change. It’s a soft target,’ said Wells. Soft target or not, May 2002 saw a U-turn as the new Consignia chairman Allan Leighton confirmed the name was to go – ‘probably in less than two years.’ He also admitted that he hated the name. ‘There’s not really a commercial reason to do it, but there’s a credibility reason to do it,’ he told BBC TV’s Breakfast with Frost programme. He said the name change was ‘unfortunate’ as it had coincided with a period of underperformance by the company (it lost over one million pounds a day during one month in 2001). However, the news was lost on some people, as the Consignia brand had failed to become a household name. ‘I didn’t know that the Post Office wasn’t called the Post Office,’ one member of the public told a radio news interviewer at the time of the announcement. ‘Everyone I know calls it the Post Office.’
- Page 164 and 165: 156 Brand failures of the Bombay St
- Page 166 and 167: 158 Brand failures Coca-Cola. The
- Page 168 and 169: 160 Brand failures Lessons from Kel
- Page 170 and 171: 162 Brand failures Translation trou
- Page 172 and 173: 53 Schweppes Tonic Water in Italy I
- Page 174 and 175: 55 Electrolux in the United States
- Page 176 and 177: 57 Coors in Spain Coors beer had eq
- Page 178 and 179: 59 Clairol’s Mist Stick in German
- Page 180 and 181: 61 American Airlines in Mexico When
- Page 182 and 183: 63 Kentucky Fried Chicken in Hong K
- Page 184 and 185: 176 Brand failures ment. Pretty soo
- Page 186 and 187: 178 Brand failures 65 Quaker Oats
- Page 188 and 189: 180 Brand failures Lessons from Sna
- Page 191 and 192: The people behind a brand are its m
- Page 193 and 194: People failures 185 66 Enron Failin
- Page 195 and 196: People failures 187 67 Arthur Ander
- Page 197 and 198: People failures 189 68 Ratner’s W
- Page 199 and 200: People failures 191 met comedians w
- Page 201 and 202: People failures 193 was out, Planet
- Page 203 and 204: People failures 195 is wrong to lea
- Page 205 and 206: People failures 197 had lost the su
- Page 207: People failures 199 tortilla brand
- Page 211 and 212: Brands, like people, have a fear of
- Page 213: Rebranding failures 205 73 Consigni
- Page 217 and 218: Rebranding failures 209 74 Tommy Hi
- Page 219 and 220: Rebranding failures 211 style that
- Page 221 and 222: Rebranding failures 213 in the Repu
- Page 223 and 224: Rebranding failures 215 former secr
- Page 225 and 226: Rebranding failures 217 Lessons fro
- Page 227 and 228: Rebranding failures 219 neighbours
- Page 229 and 230: 79 British Airways When British Air
- Page 231: CHAPTER 9 Internet and new technolo
- Page 234 and 235: 226 Brand failures now believe bran
- Page 237 and 238: 81 Pets.com In the mid-1990s, when
- Page 239 and 240: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 241 and 242: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 243 and 244: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 245 and 246: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 247 and 248: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 249 and 250: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 251 and 252: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 253 and 254: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 255 and 256: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 257 and 258: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 259 and 260: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 261 and 262: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 263: Internet and new technology failure
206 <strong>Brand</strong> failures<br />
There is a wise logic behind such thinking. After all, many companies have<br />
come unstuck as time moves on and their name is no longer relevant. For<br />
instance, Carphone Warehouse may have once imagined a world full of<br />
consumers waiting to upgrade their carphones, but the reality is that now<br />
most people wouldn’t recognize a carphone if it hit them over the head. And<br />
other brands have managed to create very successful identities with brand<br />
names that have no direct relevance to their products, or anyone else’s<br />
products for that matter. This is especially true on the Internet. While selfdescriptive<br />
brands such as Letsbuyit.com and Pets.com flopped, vague and<br />
mysterious brand names such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo! have worked<br />
exceptionally well. Indeed, many of the largest brands in the world follow<br />
this model. To take the most obvious example, no-one who spends their<br />
money via Richard Branson’s company expects to take home a real virgin, any<br />
more than people buying books at Amazon expect to be transported to a<br />
tropical rainforest. These names are about evocation. They are about the<br />
identity of the brand, not the product.<br />
Before the Post Office, many other British institutions had also tried to<br />
bring themselves into the new millennium. British Steel had become ‘Corus’<br />
following its merger with Koninklijke Hoogovens. ‘Centrica’ was a former<br />
arm of British Gas. ‘Thus’ was the new name given to the telecoms division<br />
of Scottish Power. The list goes on and on.<br />
So what was the name given to the Post Office On 9 January 2002, the<br />
group’s chief executive, John Roberts, stood outside his organization’s<br />
headquarters and declared that the name was Consignia. This name, he<br />
added, was ‘modern, meaningful and entirely appropriate’ to the rapidly<br />
evolving organization.<br />
Dragon <strong>Brand</strong>’s Keith Wells was equally happy with Consignia. ‘It’s got<br />
consign in it. It’s got a link with insignia, so there is this kind of royalty-ish<br />
thing in the back of one’s mind,’ he explained to the BBC. ‘And there’s this<br />
lovely dictionary definition of consign which is “to entrust to the care of.”<br />
That goes right back to sustaining trust, which was very, very important.’ In<br />
addition, the name change had been approved by the controversial government<br />
minister Stephen Byers, who was at that time the trade secretary.<br />
The reaction from the media and the general public was considerably less<br />
sympathetic. Some thought it sounded like a new brand of aftershave or<br />
deodorant. Others thought it was the name of an electricity company. The<br />
BBC’s Web site referred to ‘the most notorious ever Post Office robbery – that