Posting Date: August 22, 2002

What happened next Monday? -- "Given the somewhat chequered history of rebranding exercises, you might have thought PwC could've been a little more cautious. To help them digest their decision, BBC News Online presents a few of the classics of the genre." (MadMan comments: This article talks about how "rebranding" efforts of companies haven't helped their fortunes. I know many designers put a lot of stock into designing logos that "communicate a company's values and image". More often than not, however, the only person who can understand what they really stand for are the people who designed them. If you took a random person off the street, showed him just the logo, and asked him what he thought it symbolised, he'd probably have no clue. But the designer will say grand things like "It shows the versatility of our skills, the multi-cultural values we believe in, and our firm vision of innovation." The guy on the street asks, "Oh, is that what the triangle inside the multi-coloured circle is supposed to be?" What do you think? How many times have you seen a logo and understood exactly what it supposedly stood for?)

Reader Comments...

While branding/rebranding efforts are not totally without value, I hope they can be placed in better perspective after the dot bomb. At its best branding is a means to influence, at its worst it is just a con directed at credulous business executives.

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 22, 2002 01:18 PM

I'd be the first to say that branding is important to a business, Ron.

What I wanted to ask is whether efforts at redesigning the logo so it conveys something "new" are worth the money spent on them.

Do you look at Acer's logo and think "A breakaway from its competitors, the new identity sports a vivid green, representing life, growth, prosperity and resiliency?" (see linked article)

Posted by: MadMan on August 22, 2002 01:31 PM

Most people don't consciously see such things in logos, but a good logo will subconsciously evoke an appropriate response in consumers. Things like choice of font can make a huge difference in how a company is perceived even by non-designers.

Posted by: Matt Round on August 22, 2002 01:45 PM

I don't disagree, so let me clarify:

are not totally without value - They have value, just far less than many have been/were led to believe, especially during the Internet boom and bust.

At its best branding is a means to influence - As to opposed to being a means to inform... Important, yes. Overhyped, absolutely!

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 22, 2002 02:23 PM

We are so bombarded with brands and logos that changes are either so subtle we don't notice, or so blatant we lose sight of what the company is that its supposed to represent.

Except for perhaps recently, the Price Waterhouse name had tradition and history. You knew who they were. Monday? How is that supposed to make me think of a consulting firm? Another example is the incessant "mlife" commercials during the Super Bowl. Instead of just calling it AT&T, they gave it a brand that no one could associate with. The commercials were universally ranked at or near the bottom of all SB commercials due to that fact.

Now, Pizza Hut and Burger King have both made changes to their logos. But because they are subtle changes (mostly font), you could ask people and they probably wouldn't have noticed the logo had changed unless you told them. was it worth it to change the brand logo if no one notices.

Bottom line, we're not consumers in the 50's when ads were not nearly as pervasive. It's too much to process, and changes like "Monday" only serve to confuse rather than educate, IMHO.

Posted by: Darin on August 22, 2002 04:50 PM

Interesting point, Darin.

So my question is this: did the logos of McD or Burger King ever stop you from buying a burger there? Did anyone ever say, "I would have bought a meal combo, but dammit that logo was too big and so I won't"?

Conversely, now that their logos have changed, are you any more likely to buy a burger at either place? Isn't the brand in the name "McDonald's" itself? The logo is famous because of the brand and the company name, not the other way around.

Opinions welcome, of course.

Posted by: MadMan on August 22, 2002 05:49 PM

Sometimes the rebranding is really, really good. I'm damned if I can remember who the heck LG were before they rebranded, but I do know they are capitalising the heck out of the human face of "LG"

Posted by: Eric Scheid on August 22, 2002 08:26 PM

Sometimes the rebranding is really, really good. I'm damned if I can remember who the heck LG were before they rebranded, but I do know they are capitalising the heck out of the human face of "LG"

Posted by: Eric Scheid on August 22, 2002 08:26 PM

At a call centre, Interbrand director John Simmonds suggests that 'an individual represents the brand with their own personality.
If In Doubt Brand Spiked Online 14 Aug 2002

Wait till we find out how the suits have been 'valuing' their brand images. Enron will look like a tea party.

Posted by: Mac on August 23, 2002 08:14 AM

MadMan, great points as well.

When it comes to both McDonald's and Burger King, branding and name recognition have no influence on whether I buy from there. It's usually the cheapest when I only have a couple of bucks to spend. :)

Posted by: Darin on August 23, 2002 04:26 PM

Except for perhaps recently, the Price Waterhouse name had tradition and history. You knew who they were. Monday? How is that supposed to make me think of a consulting firm?

Hey Darin

I think you're missing a few things here:

Arthur Andersen also had (pre-Enron) a very well known, much respected name. And yet its separated, rebranded management consultancy has a name (Accenture) which 'Monday' beats by several miles in the 'being any good at all' stakes.
The name is only one small part of a brand. Salman Rushdie puts it well: Names, once they are in common use, quickly become mere sounds, their etymology being buried, like so many of the earth's marvels, beneath the dust of habit. Who thinks of a literal apple when thinking of the computer company? Or an orange when thinking of Hutchison Telecom?
Are you a buyer of management consultancy services at the top end of the market? That is, are you a board level executive in a Global 1000 company, with sign-off ability over consultancy spends of (say) $10m+? If not, why does your opinion matter?
The firm hasn't been PriceWaterhouse since the merger with Coopers and Lybrand some years back.
I think many people aren't understanding why the change is happening. This isn't a 'wake up in the morning and decide to change your branding' move. It's been brought about because the consultancy arm of the business has to separate from the audit side. The SEC has been insistent on this for the last few years, way before Enron. And given that one of the brand values of the consutancy arm is being bold, ending up calling the separated business 'PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting' was never really an option.

Posted by: martin on August 24, 2002 02:38 AM

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

URL: http://webword.com/weblog/