Hello
After three years of writing for Heywood Innovation's four blogs – branding, employer branding, M&A branding and annual report - I have decided to combine them all into one 'visual' blog that celebrates a new affiliation with our good friends the Taylor & Taylor creative team in Melbourne, and the sensational strategic and creative work that is driving our growth into 2011. The blog features work our teams are producing in the Sydney, Melbourne, London and Birmingham markets. Our new HITT blog can be accessed here.
Best regards
Tony Heywood
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Will our new name fit on our letterhead?
PricewaterhouseCoopers is a pretty big firm. In fact it’s the biggest of the Big 4 audit firms in the world (or it was the last time I looked). And it also has one of the least creative names in that sector or, in fact, any sector... and the longest.
It was formed in 1998 by the merger of two large firms, Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand. Both firms have a long history dating back to the nineteenth century. So did it get just too hard back in 1998 to think of a brand new name? ... or a new brand name? Was it a bad year for creativity? Were the naming firms on holiday? Were both firms so precious about their names and heritage that they just wouldn’t give them up no matter what?
It turns out that in 1989 Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen had discussed a merger to explore economies of scale. So we may have ended up with PricewaterhouseArthur or even PricewaterhouseAndersen. Luckily Price Waterhouse didn’t merge and avoided getting tainted by the Enron disaster.
But wait there’s more. Coopers & Lybrand was the result of a merger in 1957 between Cooper Brothers & Co; Lybrand, Ross Bros & Montgomery and a Canadian firm McDonald, Currie and Co.
Hey it could have been RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo! How would that have looked on the letterhead? Pity the poor receptionist... “Good morning this RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo, can I help you?
I guess it would have been a disaster if it had an office in a certain small village in north west Wales... “Ello boyo this is RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo’s Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch office... can I ’elp you?
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney and London with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, Singapore and Mumbai.
It was formed in 1998 by the merger of two large firms, Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand. Both firms have a long history dating back to the nineteenth century. So did it get just too hard back in 1998 to think of a brand new name? ... or a new brand name? Was it a bad year for creativity? Were the naming firms on holiday? Were both firms so precious about their names and heritage that they just wouldn’t give them up no matter what?
It turns out that in 1989 Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen had discussed a merger to explore economies of scale. So we may have ended up with PricewaterhouseArthur or even PricewaterhouseAndersen. Luckily Price Waterhouse didn’t merge and avoided getting tainted by the Enron disaster.
But wait there’s more. Coopers & Lybrand was the result of a merger in 1957 between Cooper Brothers & Co; Lybrand, Ross Bros & Montgomery and a Canadian firm McDonald, Currie and Co.
Hey it could have been RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo! How would that have looked on the letterhead? Pity the poor receptionist... “Good morning this RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo, can I help you?
I guess it would have been a disaster if it had an office in a certain small village in north west Wales... “Ello boyo this is RossbrosmontgomerymcdonaldCurrieCo’s Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch office... can I ’elp you?
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney and London with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, Singapore and Mumbai.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Brands off the agenda again
Australian companies are once again on the hunt for...
– tasty acquisitions now the war chest has been replenished, or
– mergers with like minded businesses intent on the 'bigger is better' model.
They're looking for acquisitions that can fast track new growth in recovering markets. Sadly we're not seeing much evidence that brand is being considered as part of
a/. the due-diligence processes preceding negotiations or
b/. the integration activities that follow a merger
They're paying big bucks to expensive advisors to get the deal across the line. Why don't they invest some money and time making sure those valuable brands and the people attached to them are going to survive the journey?
Enter marketing department stage left. The good old 'we can do it all' marketing team are once again thrown headlong into the fray to manage the brand through the latter stages of the merger or acquisition, usually when it's too late, usually headed by people with little experience or little desire to be dragged away from their new designs for a multi-page pop-up direct mail piece.
Without a doubt customer brand allegiances influence M&A deals. Tamper with them at your peril. Customer and employee perceptions of the brands play a huge role in determining the smooth transition of the deal and the ultimate viability of your post-deal branding strategy. Ask them about it before it's too late.
Surely acquirers would have done their branding homework before approaching the target? Surely they would have included robust research to determine brand value and the true drivers of brand equity. Did they look beyond this to determine what role the brands might play in driving long-term business outcomes and the ultimate success of the deal?
I hope so!
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney and London with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, Singapore and Mumbai.
– tasty acquisitions now the war chest has been replenished, or
– mergers with like minded businesses intent on the 'bigger is better' model.
They're looking for acquisitions that can fast track new growth in recovering markets. Sadly we're not seeing much evidence that brand is being considered as part of
a/. the due-diligence processes preceding negotiations or
b/. the integration activities that follow a merger
They're paying big bucks to expensive advisors to get the deal across the line. Why don't they invest some money and time making sure those valuable brands and the people attached to them are going to survive the journey?
Enter marketing department stage left. The good old 'we can do it all' marketing team are once again thrown headlong into the fray to manage the brand through the latter stages of the merger or acquisition, usually when it's too late, usually headed by people with little experience or little desire to be dragged away from their new designs for a multi-page pop-up direct mail piece.
Without a doubt customer brand allegiances influence M&A deals. Tamper with them at your peril. Customer and employee perceptions of the brands play a huge role in determining the smooth transition of the deal and the ultimate viability of your post-deal branding strategy. Ask them about it before it's too late.
Surely acquirers would have done their branding homework before approaching the target? Surely they would have included robust research to determine brand value and the true drivers of brand equity. Did they look beyond this to determine what role the brands might play in driving long-term business outcomes and the ultimate success of the deal?
I hope so!
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney and London with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, Singapore and Mumbai.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The odds are 1 in 5 that your M&A will succeed! You want to question that?
One important question that tends to be asked by listed companies in a M&A scenario is – “will the M&A enhance shareholder value?” Well, will it? This however is only one of many questions with which you will be faced in the journey to M&A.
Surely this is the primary goal of any listed company? But how is it measured, when many companies are sceptical of measurement methodologies and the integrity and accuracy of the results? It is reasonable to hope that most M&As will result in an instant raising of the company’s share price, and that company boards, rightly or wrongly, will use this simple indicator as a measure of success. But is this rise simply a short term moment of excitement? Surely the long term impact is a more important measure of the potential and ultimate sustainability of the newly formed entity? Will the two sets of shareholders see the upside potential or wallow in confusion as the two brands come together. Harmony or conflict?
Will the new entity gain new market share or even market domination? Will it become the new leader in the market segment? Will your M&A master the science of 1 + 1 = 3 or, as happens in 80% of cases, fail its elementary maths lesson with 1 + 1 = less than 2, or even 1 + 1 = 0 and never graduate from branding university?
Will the post-merger period be a reactive minefield or proactive where synergies are aligned with the pre-merger planning? The path to successful integration requires two approaches – internal and external.
Are the two brands compatible? Will they operate in perfect harmony surrounded by a warm shareholder glow, or fight tooth and nail to protect their interests fuelled by employee and customer concerns? How much brand-related groundwork was commissioned before the M&A was seriously considered?
Internal
Will the newly formed rock band Culture Clash raise its collective voice? Are the two sets of employees compatible? Are they moulded by a strong allegiance to their present employer’s culture and about to feel deceived by the obligation to transition to a totally different or compromise one?
External
What are the marketplace perceptions of the M&A? What exactly have you told your shareholders and customers about all this? Will they believe your predictions of success and compatibility? Have you told them what the new brand model will be – one brand, two brands or new brand – and why?
How will you fare in the transition? Will your organisational capabilities integrate? Will the employees, resources and brands do likewise?
Time to call in the branding/integration/compatibility coach.
Tony Heywood is a Sydney-based brand guidance counsellor, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, London, Singapore and Mumbai.
Surely this is the primary goal of any listed company? But how is it measured, when many companies are sceptical of measurement methodologies and the integrity and accuracy of the results? It is reasonable to hope that most M&As will result in an instant raising of the company’s share price, and that company boards, rightly or wrongly, will use this simple indicator as a measure of success. But is this rise simply a short term moment of excitement? Surely the long term impact is a more important measure of the potential and ultimate sustainability of the newly formed entity? Will the two sets of shareholders see the upside potential or wallow in confusion as the two brands come together. Harmony or conflict?
Will the new entity gain new market share or even market domination? Will it become the new leader in the market segment? Will your M&A master the science of 1 + 1 = 3 or, as happens in 80% of cases, fail its elementary maths lesson with 1 + 1 = less than 2, or even 1 + 1 = 0 and never graduate from branding university?
Will the post-merger period be a reactive minefield or proactive where synergies are aligned with the pre-merger planning? The path to successful integration requires two approaches – internal and external.
Are the two brands compatible? Will they operate in perfect harmony surrounded by a warm shareholder glow, or fight tooth and nail to protect their interests fuelled by employee and customer concerns? How much brand-related groundwork was commissioned before the M&A was seriously considered?
Internal
Will the newly formed rock band Culture Clash raise its collective voice? Are the two sets of employees compatible? Are they moulded by a strong allegiance to their present employer’s culture and about to feel deceived by the obligation to transition to a totally different or compromise one?
External
What are the marketplace perceptions of the M&A? What exactly have you told your shareholders and customers about all this? Will they believe your predictions of success and compatibility? Have you told them what the new brand model will be – one brand, two brands or new brand – and why?
- Will you adopt the brand of the acquirer, because it is the market leader and you want to consolidate its position and possibly remove the competition?
- Will you combine the two brands? Are they equals in regards to similar market presence, reach and brand equity? Or is it simply that you can’t decide which one?
- Is it preferable to adopt the formula a + b = c where a new combined entity with a new name and identity is born?
How will you fare in the transition? Will your organisational capabilities integrate? Will the employees, resources and brands do likewise?
Time to call in the branding/integration/compatibility coach.
Tony Heywood is a Sydney-based brand guidance counsellor, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, London, Singapore and Mumbai.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
State of Play in M&A
There is no disputing the fact that in Q1 2010 we are still in a low growth environment. A new Ernst & Young report reveals that 49% of Australian companies believe this may continue for another 12 or 24 months. This is prompting renewed interest in acquisitions as a means to secure market share, as businesses see little growth potential in the recovering markets.
Highlights of the report include:
It would appear that in Q1 2010 Australian M&A activity is back on the agenda. Obviously the less well capitalised companies will become targets. In a low growth environment companies using acquisitions to get ahead will perform better than those relying only on a market return.
I am hoping that executive boards will place more emphasis on effective integration of company brands pre- and post-acquisition and will allocate funds accordingly to seek external help and reduce the risk of failure – which remains at around 20% for all mergers. The big distractions of 2008/09 did little to improve investment in M&A branding.
So which sectors will experience the most M&A activity moving forward? According to the latest semi-annual survey of 921 investment professsonals by the Association for Corporate Growth (www.acg.org) and Thomson Reuters...
It also revealed that...
Valuations will not return in any great hurry to what they were pre-downturn. Buyers realise this and are patiently awaiting sellers to come to grips with the new valuation structure and be more realistic.
Perhaps only then will M&A activity start to surge?
Tony Heywood is a Sydney-based brand guidance counsellor, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, London, Singapore and Mumbai.
Highlights of the report include:
- 29% of Australian companies are likely or highly likely to acquire other companies in the next six months.
- 80% of companies expect consolidation in their industries over the next 12 months
- 36% rate the M&A outlook as very favourable
- 41% would like to use potential opportunities for inorganic groth over the next six months
- 3% of companies are presently focused on survival
- 46% of companies are ‘very well positioned’ to make a quick acquisition within 30 days notice
It would appear that in Q1 2010 Australian M&A activity is back on the agenda. Obviously the less well capitalised companies will become targets. In a low growth environment companies using acquisitions to get ahead will perform better than those relying only on a market return.
I am hoping that executive boards will place more emphasis on effective integration of company brands pre- and post-acquisition and will allocate funds accordingly to seek external help and reduce the risk of failure – which remains at around 20% for all mergers. The big distractions of 2008/09 did little to improve investment in M&A branding.
So which sectors will experience the most M&A activity moving forward? According to the latest semi-annual survey of 921 investment professsonals by the Association for Corporate Growth (www.acg.org) and Thomson Reuters...
- 23% of respondents named the healthcare/life life sciences as the most active area for merger activity in Q1-2 2010.
- closely following this is manufacturing and distribution - 18%, and financial services - 14%.
It also revealed that...
- 94% believe strategic investments will accelerate in the first half of 2010
- 54% are actively pursuing distressed companies
- 48% expect more than one in four deals to be with distressed companies in the first half of 2010
- 34% identified manufacturing and distribution as the best opportunity for distressed investing
- in November 2009 there was a drop of 33% in announced deals compared to November 2008
- 87% describe the Q4 2009 M&A environment as fair or poor
- 82% expect an increase in merger activity over the next six months
- 80% expect to pay no more than five times EBITDA for acquisitions over the next six months
- 37% identify the main M&A obstacle as the gap between the price at which a company is willing to sell and the price a buyer is willing to pay
Valuations will not return in any great hurry to what they were pre-downturn. Buyers realise this and are patiently awaiting sellers to come to grips with the new valuation structure and be more realistic.
Perhaps only then will M&A activity start to surge?
Tony Heywood is a Sydney-based brand guidance counsellor, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia with affiliates in Melbourne, Gold Coast, London, Singapore and Mumbai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
