Time for a name change at Time Warner

March 2, 2014

Screen shot 2014-03-01 at 11.07.12 AM

Time Warner, the media conglomerate that bears the title of once-great magazine in its name, is getting out of the publishing business.

The plan to spin off its Time Inc. magazine division is part of the great unraveling of a conglomerate that came into being in 1990 with the merger of Time Inc. and Warner Communications.  It will complete Time Warner’s evolution into a pure cable television and movie production company from what was once a colossus that included dominant cable and Internet companies, a book publisher and music unit.

It also redresses the lingering fallout of Time Warner’s recent corporate marriages, most notably AOL’s $103.5 billion acquisition of Time Warner in 2000 that created the monstrous AOL Time Warner.  That debacle became a case study in M.B.A. programs on how not to run a company.

For one brief shining moment

For one brief shining moment

With the departure of Time Inc. from its stable it would be an ideal time for Time Warner to resolve the confusion that has surrounded its name for years, the chief culprit in this being Time Warner Cable.

It is no minor issue. Time Warner Cable was a division of Time Warner Inc. up until 2009 when it was spun off… as Time Warner Cable. Since the separation it’s been commonplace to see their names confused.

Time Warner Inc. regularly gets complaints from Time Warner Cable customers about its apparently terrible service. Time Warner Cable, for its part, gets complaints from people about programming of Time Warner-owned cable channels such as CNN and HBO.

Executives at Time Warner Cable did make a run at a name change in 2010. The search was voluntary; the company was under no contractual obligation to find a new name. Dubbed ‘Project Mercury’ the name search involved the combined might of WPP’s Ogilvy and its various branding agencies, all to no avail. In the end, the folks at Time Warner Cable couldn’t wean themselves off the seductive familiarity of the Time Warner name, or even the word ‘cable’, so they made do with a logo change and a new ad campaign to create ‘distance’.

Is this far enough?

Is this far enough?

They also might have been glancing over their shoulders at the naming travails of its sister company, Time Warner Telecom, which had to change its name under a license agreement that expired in 2006. It made a complete hash of the job and after two license extensions the company finally surrendered with the name ‘TW Telecom’ in 2008.

Now, along comes Comcast to the rescue. It’s planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable will likely do Time Warner Inc. a favor by burying the Time Warner Cable name.

A possible option for Comcast is to rename the combined company Xfinity, the current name for its TV, phone and Internet service. Nobody likes their cable company, but Comcast and Time Warner Cable are particularly reviled, both consistently ranking at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys. While it’s not a lovely name, Xfinity is free of the cable company service stigma. Still, that will be Comcast’s call.

Meanwhile, Time Warner Inc. has some soul searching of its own to do. The spin off of Time Inc. will mean there will be two companies with similar names traded on the stock market: Time Warner Inc. and Time Inc.

With no ‘Time’ in Time Warner will the company simply lop off Time from its name, as it did so unceremoniously with AOL in 2003, and become plain Warner Inc., or Warner Media? Even that would be problematic as there is the Warner Music Group, a closely held music company whose sale by Time Warner began the great unraveling.

Time Warner is beginning to look a lot like Viacom. It needs to find a similar kind of brand name that makes strategic sense of the whole, rather than passively drawing its identity from acquired properties that come and go. While time might not be running out for Time Warner, Time is no longer on its side.

See also: Time Warner’s naming twavails


The old, old story of a new corporate name

January 8, 2014

Keysight LogoThe only interesting thing about the new Keysight Technologies name from Agilent is the weird familiarity of the story surrounding its development.

It’s like a tired, old Agatha Christie plot recycled over and over. Only the names of the characters have changed.

A corporate spinoff is announced: they need a name, one with a message–wait, so what do we stand for? It also has to be easy to pronounce and – watch out for those tricky translation issues – it can’t mean shriveled testicles or anything rude in Japanese!

It sounds easy; it turned out to be very hard, much harder than anyone imagined.

An internal multi-regional, cross-functional team is formed just to complicate things. Once again executives rummage for candidates in the HP heritage bin – Addison Technologies anyone? Lawyers in international markets can’t agree. A private investigator is hired to track down the owner of a domain name.

It finally gets down to a shortlist of candidates…and then the CEO nixes them all on his iPhone.

He doesn’t like anything? Quick, back to the drawing board!

“It’s really hard to just take a bunch of letters and put them together, and have somebody identify with them right away,” says client breathlessly after three months of turmoil. “I would definitely describe it as a wild ride, three months of insanity.” Indeed. Insane.

A new name is finally announced. A happy ending in this case. Phew! But such an unnecessary palaver.

Read the unabridged version here.

Thanks to the EEVBlog, here are a few possible alternative name candidates:


This is Shinola

December 9, 2013

This is Shinola

There was a saying where I came from about people who were easily confused or taken in. “Graham can’t tell his arse from his elbow”, we’d say.

Americans have a pithier expression: “Wade can’t tell shit from Shinola.” The alliterative ‘sh…’ sound adds an important degree of subtlety here in that it makes some allowance for possible auditory confusion among the perceptually impaired.

I had no idea what Shinola was but I was pretty sure I could distinguish it from shit.

Shinola, as it turns out, was an American shoe polish brand. Wikipedia reliably informs us that it was introduced in 1907 by Shinola-Bixby Corporation of Rochester, NY.

The -ola suffix for product names was all the fashion thanks to the popularity of the Pianola at the time, a player piano that possibly derived its name from the violin-viola relationship. In 1906 the Victor Talking Machine Company launched the Victrola gramophone. Galvin Manufacturing later introduced the Motorola car radio, a ‘Victrola’ for your motor and the whole crapola naming trend ran its course soon after.

Shinola (add shine to ‘ola’) polished its last boot in 1960 when the company went out of business but its name lives on as more than a euphemism for you know what. Shinola has been reborn as a luxury brand.

Yes indeed. You are now urged to think of Shinola in the same way you think of Mont Blanc with its expensive pens and other luxury ‘lifestyle’ accessories you don’t really need.

The company behind Shinola, Bedrock Brands, was started by a founder of the Fossil brand of watches, Tom Kartsotis. Last year, Crain’s Detroit Business reported that Mr. Kartsotis commissioned a study in which people were asked if they preferred pens made in China that cost $5, the United States at $10 or Detroit at $15, and when offered the Detroit option, they chose it regardless of the higher price.

Screen shot 2013-12-09 at 9.27.25 PM

And so a luxury brand was born, trading on the manufacturing prowess of a city that was once known as Motown, the Motor City. And its name is Shinola?

Shinola opened the doors of its flagship store in New York’s Tribeca neighborhood in July. The Shinola product line consists of an unlikely paring of watches, bicycles and leather goods, many of which are made in Detroit, or at least assembled in Detroit. Yes, you can buy Shinola shoe polish at$15 a can and, if the impulse takes you, there’s a “Rare American Flag” going for $15,000 in the ‘Curated’ section its website. Add it to your cart.

All-in-all Shinola leaves you with an odd, empty feeling. The product set has no brand focus. The faux authenticity of its story, straddling a “storied American brand, and a storied American city”,  is bizarrely schizophrenic. Shinola is by no stretch a ‘storied’ brand. What stories are told about Shinola apart from its association with shit? It is all off-the-mark marketing cliche and hype.

Detroit, on the other hand, could be a winning idea. Clint Eastwood’s raw, gritty Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler in 2012 “Halftime in America” hit exactly the right note.  It was an uplifting tribute to a great American city and a great brand.

The sentiment behind the Shinola brand tries to capture that same spirit but fumbles it. What have Detroit and Shinola got to do with each other?

Is the brand Detroit, is it Shinola, or is it something you just want to wipe off your shoes?


Super-sizing Santander

October 20, 2013

An unveiling ceremony in Manhattan’s Herald Square this week gave New Yorkers a first view of a gaudy red sign that bears the name of a financial services powerhouse.

It says, simply, ‘Santander’.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was there with Emilio Botin, Chairman of the Santander Group. It was an important occasion for Santander. Similar ceremonies took place in Boston, Philadelphia, Providence and Wyomissing, PA.

It marks it the end of Boston’s Sovereign Bank, acquired by Santander four years ago and, more significantly, the beginning of Santander’s presence in the US market. The red sign will soon go up above 700 branches of what was Sovereign Bank network in nine states in the northeast.

Goodbye Sovereign

Goodbye Sovereign

The global brand hegemony of the Spanish banking group is impressive to behold.

Those oddly anonymous strips of red actually bear the name of a wet, nondescript port city on the northern coast of Spain. Santander is derived from the name of a 3rd century Catholic martyr, Saint Emeterio. Over time it became Santemter, then Santenter and finally Santander (see Namedroppings).

The bank’s history begins in 1857, when Queen Isabel II signed a royal decree authorizing the founding of Banco Santander to capitalize on the trade boom between Spain and Latin America.

A huge acquisition spree has, quite literally, put Santander on the global map. Today it is the largest bank in the Eurozone by market value and one of the largest banks in the world in terms of market capitalization with 186,000 employees, 102 million customers and 14,392 branches worldwide.

In the UK those bright red signs have spread like kudzu on every high street in the land over the last decade. Santander snapped up several of Britain’s most prominent building societies, including Abbey National, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley, quickly building up a national network of more than 1,300 retail branches, each of which slot in cheerily between the local Waitrose supermarket and Thorntons candy store.

Not Bank of America

Not Bank of America

The virtue of the Santander name is in its very blandness. Pronounced ‘san-tan-DAIR’ (although it will probably become better known in the US as ‘SAN-tanda’) it could be anything. It certainly doesn’t sound like a bank. And after the financial turmoil of the last recession and the bailouts that’s a good thing. People are still wary of big banks.

Santander’s rise is the Darwinian way, especially in financial services. Brands ebb and flow like corks on the economic tide. In the US, financial giants Merrill Lynch, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were swept away in the last recession.

If the UK is anything to go by Sovereign Bank will be just the first of several Santander acquisitions in the US on its way to prominence. It’s unflashy brand rooted in resolute consistency and customer focus has all the hallmarks of that other retailing giant that got the basics right.

Santander has the global scale, resources and corporate ambition to become the McDonalds of retail banking.

References:

Top 25 US bank changes its name to Santander today

Sovereign Bank Starts Over as Santander


EY, aye ya-yi

July 20, 2013

It was either Al Ries or Jack Trout who first propounded the law of three syllables.

It goes something like this: if a name has more than three syllables it will be abbreviated or reduced to initials in popular usage.

It explains why New York (two syllables) is always New York while Los Angeles (four syllables) is more popularly known as ‘LA’. Likewise, Detroit is always Detroit but Philadelphia is Philly; and Wells Fargo gets its full name while Bank of America is referred to as BofA.

Beverages & More! was shortened to ‘BevMo!’ and Federal Express became ‘Fedex’. Most people knew Network Appliance as ‘NetApp’ and the Federal National Mortgage Association became ‘Fannie May’ via its initials, FNMA, and so on.

When there’s no handy short form available there’s always initials to fall back on – so PricewaterhouseCoopers becomes PwC, National Public Radio becomes NPR and National Cash Register becomes NCR.

There’s an important clause to the three syllable naming rule: only after a name has been has been appropriated and blessed in the public domain with common usage can it be yours to adopt and used with credibility. As my friend Ray likes to say – you can’t give yourself a nickname.

Thus, when National Cash Register formally changed its name to NCR in 1974 it had long since moved beyond the cash register business and NCR was how people referred to the company.

The Federal National Mortgage Association became, officially, Fannie May in 1997. In 2000, FDX Corporation, the parent company of Fedex, changed its name to Fedex Corporation. Beverages & More! became BevMo! in 2001. Network Appliance adopted NetApp as its name in 2008, and in 2010 National Public Radio changed its name to just NPR. PricewaterhouseCoopers finally bowed to the inevitable and joined the rest of the world when it decided to call itself PwC in 2010.

EY

All of which brings us to Ernst & Young, or EY as it now wishes to be known.

One of the big four audit firms along with KPMG, Deloitte and PwC, Ernst & Young was created out of the merger of Ernst & Whinney and Arthur Young in 1989.

For years Ernst & Young and Deloitte retained the professional high ground with their proper names. Deloitte smartly recognized the value of its name and has built a world-class brand around it. Ernst & Young had the same opportunity. The name is only three syllables long, easily pronounced and rich in history.

In succumbing to the use of initials in an attempt to reinvent itself, EY joins KPMG and PwC in the fog of corporate initialisms, leaving Deloitte to rejoice in its good fortune.

The problem for EY is that it has never been referred to as EY. Falling within the three-syllable rule, people have not had any need to abbreviate the name. In syllabic terms, Ernst & Young is just as long as IBM. In the industry it is occasionally referred to as ‘Ernst’ or  ‘E&Y’ (still three syllables long) or just Ernst & Young, but never EY as far as I know (although there was an interlocked E and Y in the previous logo).

Ernst-and-Young-logo

EY feels forced as a result.  It doesn’t help either to have two letters with soft sounds that together look like an exclamation  – EY!

EY has something of the ‘CA’ problem (CA’s initial naming mistake). When Computer Associates changed its name to CA it never took. Four years later the company changed its name again, adding ‘Technologies’ to CA “to ensure that we tell a consistent story in the market that reflects the full breadth and depth of what we offer.”

Still, the new EY comes snappily outfitted in gray and yellow and that might be enough to convince people that the company has a convincing new story to tell about who it is and where it’s going.

But just as we were off and running with a new idea there’s that awkward tagline to hurdle: Building a better working world.

True, it does have some nice alliterative qualities – BBWW – but, again, it feels forced (maybe for the sake of alliterative symmetry). Is it correct to say “better working”? I want to take out my editor’s pen and make it either “Building a better, working world” or “Building a world that works better”.

Building a better working world? EY!

t

Ernst & Young Rebranding Draws Comparisons To ‘Sexy Boys’ Publication EY! Megateen


Why pay $2milllion for a name when you can have the likes of Mibblio, Kaggle, Shodogg and Zaarly?

July 19, 2013

An element of brashness and bravado is almost de rigueur in the naming of technology  startups.

They have, quite literally, nothing to lose and everything to gain by drawing attention to their existence with a quirky name.

Quirky names first surfaced about 20 years ago in Silicon Valley, with the birth of search engines such as Yahoo! which is said to stand for “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle” (although that’s almost certainly a backronym) and Google, a misspelling of googol, a mathematical term for the digit 1 followed by 100 zeroes.

The current crop of startups boasts even wackier spellings. The reason, they say, is that practically every new business—be it a popsicle maker or a furniture retailer—needs its own website. With about 252 million domain names currently registered across the Internet, the short, recognizable dot-com Web addresses, or URLs, have long been taken.

The only practical solution, some entrepreneurs say, is to invent words, like Mibblio, Kaggle, Shodogg and Zaarly, to avoid paying as much as $2 million for a concise, no-nonsense dot-com URL.

Read more: Why Startups Are Sporting Increasingly Quirky Names


To Xfinity, and beyond: The new laws of naming

February 13, 2010

Newspapers and magazines love lists. They are easy copy, as they need little or no research apart from the elicitation of a few expert opinions on the subject in question. And readers love them, if only to disagree.

Time magazine has a whole section on its website devoted to Top 10 lists. It includes compulsively irrelevant topics such as the Top 10 Internet Blunders, and the Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Hanukkah.

This week Time rushed out a list of the Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes in honor of Xfinity, the new name from Comcast, the cable company, for its service offerings.

In a rush to judgment Time put Xfinity at the top of the list that included Accenture, SyFy, Consignia, Xe, Altria, WWE, Spike TV, AirTran, and the Willis Tower.

It’s a curious list. The criteria seems to be that if a name change is in any way controversial, then it’s bad.

Take the Willis Tower in Chicago, for instance. It was the Sears Tower for decades, a famous Chicago landmark. Unfortunately, Sears is not the company it once was and the building has been acquired by Willis Group Holdings, a London-based insurance company. Willis, understandably, wants its own name on the building. It has upset Chicagoans no end, but all’s fair in love, war and naming rights. When it comes down to it, why is Sears a better a name for a building than Willis? Nothing more than familiarity and a large dose of sentiment, I would say.

The map of the world in my school atlas was mostly pink, denoting the reach of the British Empire. Back then, Mumbai was Bombay, Beijing was Peking and  Zimbabwe was Rhodesia. The world moves on. It disturbed me more when San Francisco’s legendary Candlestick Park became 3Com Park, which then became Monster Park before the city mandated that it shall be Candlestick Park for ever more.

Spike TV is on the list because Spike Lee claimed that people might connect the TV network with Spike Lee. He won an injunction to prevent The National Network changing its name to Spike TV. The case was settled soon after in the network’s favor. Case closed.

How does this minor spat warrant Spike TV’s inclusion on Time magazine’s Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes – because Spike Lee was upset?

The World Wrestling Federation (WWF) had to change its name to the World Wrestling Entertainment following a disagreement with the World Wildlife Fund, so WWF became WWE. What’s the problem?

Andersen Consulting was required to change its name as part of its acrimonious separation agreement with Arthur Andersen. Accenture is not a lovely name, to me it sounds like a sneeze, but to say it was “regarded as one of the worst rebrandings in corporate history” is stretching it just a bit. Accenture today is very successful, unlike its misbegotten counterpart at KPMG that became BearingPoint. It sank without trace and filed for bankruptcy in 2009. And not to forget PwC’s consulting arm, which was primped and dressed as ‘Monday’ by Wolff Olins before IBM came along to save the day. 

Consignia is rightly on the list. Its sin was not so much the name itself, as naff as it was, but the ineptitude with which the proposed change was handled. Renaming a British institution like the Royal Mail was always going to be highly controversial. Well, controversial it was. And the name became the focal point for torrent of fear and loathing that eventually sank it and the CEO of the company.

Consigned to the scrap heap

Which brings us to Xfinity, the name that clearly inspired Time’s hastily compiled list in the first place.  The negative energy around the introduction of Xfinity seems to be generated by a perception of poor service from Comcast.

William Lozito of Strategic Name Development says Comcast is “trying to put lipstick on a pig” by instituting a name change as a way to cover up service complaints.

But things are changing at Comcast. It recently acquired a majority stake in NBC Universal for $13.75 billion, giving it control of the Peacock network, an array of cable channels and a major movie studio. Advances in broadband digital technology also mean faster Internet speeds and more high-definition channels. The acquisition puts Comcast in the position of being both a content producer—through NBC and its subsidiaries—as well as a media distributor.

This is a long way from what the traditional cable company offered. As lazy and clichéd as the name Xfinity might be, it is the beginning of a campaign to convey this new world of myriad content and delivery quality, and change minds about what Comcast is. Whatever Xfinity may remind people of today, Comcast is going to spend a huge amount of money to get that brand to mean what it wants it to mean.

Today, naming is as much about PR strategy as it is about brand strategy. Accordingly, I offer these Seven New Laws of Naming:

1. All name changes of any consequence will be controversial.

2. Controversy is good for newspaper articles and circulation figures. There will always be people who don’t like a name change for whatever reason, and reporters will always find them for a quote. Be prepared.

4. New names will always remind people of something more familiar to begin with. They have to be given a context in which to understand the name.

5. People will get used to new names over time as long as they are free from negative connotations that can not be overcome (plain dumb names not withstanding).

6. Corporate name changes are politically charged. They have to be managed aggressively and proactively.

7. Social media is important. The urls xfinitysucks.com, and xfinitysucks.org are not available. Someone at Comcast is thinking ahead.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 614 other followers