A fairy story: once there was a big brand, a nice brand, a brand
that had lived happily for many years in its market, respected by its
neighbours, cherished by its kin, who had nurtured it from a puny little
brand into a rippling hunk of a brand, and they were very proud of
Then, one day, the gods decreed that the brand was far too happy and
successful for its own good, that it should be stripped of its heritage
and thrust back into the world to start afresh with a silly new name
that nobody understood or liked.
The poor brand was forced to build a new life for itself, but it had
become the subject of great teasing and disrespect.
People laughed at its new identity and soon forgot the old brand which
they had so cherished. Friendless and unloved, the brand slunk away,
broken and humiliated.
If the brand belonged to one of your clients, you’d never advise them to
let it happen, would you? And surely the same would go if it was one of
your own brands? Strangely enough, it seems not. Last week, 20/20 Media
announced that it was to throw off its rather nifty name in favour of -
don’t laugh now - BJK&E Media. Doesn’t have quite the same ring about
it, does it? Bit like Mediavest, the soon-to-be new name for the Media
Centre, about which there has already been much sniggering.
Now, I know that there was a time when the Media Centre and 20/20 meant
a big fat zero to people, but a lot of hard work and quite a few
new-business coups helped turn the empty monikers into valuable brands
of which their employees and even clients were proud.
Of course, given the globalisation of the ad business, I’d argue
vehemently for the need for unified branding. But it’s one thing
throwing away a great brand name and quite another replacing it with
something really rather silly