So much has been written about the pros and cons of name changes, I hardly think there is much to add about how and when to do it. So, today’s topic is when not to make a name change.
Assuming that these are the primary reasons for doing so,
1. You have a legacy name that doesn’t describe what the organization actually does (but look at International Business Machines … it still doesn’t always make sense, as we will discover below);
2. There is a significant financial event, like a merger or acquisition (think: Price Waterhouse + Coopers and Lybrand = PriceWaterhousecoopers, more recently shortened to PWC) where the parties agree that there is advantage in keeping a profile for both names, or in starting from scratch, see 3 below (again, if the parties agree; it’s not always the right choice);
3. The creation of a single, umbrella name for a group of allied companies would greatly improve efficiency and those improvements will drop to the bottom line (think: Granite State Electric + Massachusetts Electric + Nantucket Electric + Narragansett Electric + Niagara Mohawk = National Grid);
4. Brand confusion, when your name is too similar to that of another organization;
5. A catastrophic event that leads to the complete decimation of a brand [but let me be on record to say that it still isn’t necessarily a good idea. Tylenol and ob Tampons (Johnson + Johnson) both recovered beautifully from crises];
then these are the primary reasons not to do so:
You are a market force in your category, and you want to remain so. Are you the “Kleenex®” of your industry? If there is equity in your name—it’s easily recognizable and/or easily understood by your market—then think twice about changing it. Many organizations believe that they need a name change to signal a change in their strategy, particularly if they are looking to offer a broader product or service set. When I have talked to clients and others about this, their reasons and aspirations have struck me as being largely internal, and probably would not make the least bit of difference to their customers and prospects. Sometimes organizations “solve” this problem by reverting to initials (Kentucky Fried Chicken = KFC), but even then they frequently discover that they have squandered their time, money and reputation (awareness), three invaluable assets.
(I am happy to give you real-life examples, but I won’t do it publicly out of respect for well-intentioned people who, I think, have been poorly advised.)
Important note: the flip side of this is my own former employer, the Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston, more commonly known as the JCC. We created a new logo, Boston JCC, and changed the website URL from jccgb.org to bostonjcc.org, in order to stand out more in the first case, and to be more intuitive in the second. But we did not change the legal name of the organization.
You have no intention of following through on the changes you intend to signal. Making a name change to follow through on changes you’ve already put into motion may be a reasonable move. However, a name change for its own sake will fix nothing. Worse, you will have spent time and money while risking your reputation if and when customers discover the lack of substance behind the change.
Be honest with yourself!
An article I like on this topic, by my friend Michele Levy: “Nail Down Your Strategy Before a Name Change.”
