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.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
