Branding, is it necessary to be changed
- This topic has 14 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What do you think? After the merger, do you believe that the new entity shall have a new brand or continue with the legacy brand?
For me that would depend on the context and brand power or product type. In the industry I am currently working for this does not matter too much yet as I assume with IT and online / mobile apps it will become more important. Passengers are captive in the airport (once passed security they need to wait there for their planes) and the name of the stores where they do stop to shop do not really weight much in the balance for common goods, the main difference is mainly in luxury goods but in this case anyway as per contract with the landlord / airport authority during the bidding process we often have to bring with us to operate the luxury stores some partner brands. Thus in fact in the history of the company I currently work for the brands of the acquired company were often kept. And for other industries if the target has a very good portfolio of brands or a well know name I would be very careful in the management of brand / name change. such a transition could be risky and push some customers away.
It depends on the target and industry. Marketing DD is important to understand the target’s brand value and work out a branding strategy: If need keep the brand; if not, how long to keep it and how to migrate the branding; if yes, what would be the marketing position and how to avoid the competition with your own brand.
There are no hard and fast rules on branding post-merger. In some cases the acquirer will absorb the target’s brand(s) into the acquirer’s brand portfolio – this if often the case if the acquirer is the dominant player in industries where there is a lot of goodwill built up with its customers e.g., tourism and hospitality. In some cases both the acquirer and target maintain their own branding especially where both have established goodwill in their own respective brands in distinct products and services e.g., F&B and food products. In rare cases, both target and acquirer will completely rebrand themselves. The MICE company I was working in recently merged with another MICE company and the merged entity underwent a rebranding exercise resulting in a new and distinct name for the merged entity. Ultimately if the end-consumers associate the company with its products and services rather than the company itself, it does not really matter whether the acquirer’s or target’s brand survives since the goodwill and value of the brand lies within each product and service.
I would agree with Dorminic. NO rules as such. It completely depends on how valuable the brand of the target is and is it worth continuing. But most companies will do some sort of brand integration and absorb it as a sub-brand within the overall brand portfolio. Practically speaking it is easier to have similar logos, color-schemes to manage marketing material etc.
It depends on the industry and the deal. Is it an outright purchase, reinsurance agreement, coinsurance agreement or an administrative agreement or some variation to these? We almost always have branding that has to be factored into Integration Planning due to compliance and/or regulatory guidelines. We have also had companies where they were acquired/purchased and left in tact for a period of timed depending on overall goals. Therefore, a branding change was not needed in that scenario. However, from a synergy and costs alignment standpoint, there could be a duplication of efforts having multiple entities operating as a stand alone operation. Of course, there could be reasons/synergies that drive decisions to leave as is. As previously stated by others in the group, it is dependent on deal type and Acquisition goals and Targets.
I can only agree with discussion – it depends.
If you follow a portfolio approach, you might even want that the existing brand will continue to exist –> that’s the reason you bought a stake of the company. If you acquire a company to lift synergies, it depends on your overall strategy. You should also take care about emotions an existing brand is able to transport – from customer and employee perspective.
This is an interesting question and I think it really depends on the reason for the deal in the first place and the type of deal it is. Often you see companies that do a merger adding the name to their original name such as Pennington Manches LLP going into Pennington Manches Coopers LLP. If we are talking about an acquisition then I would think it is essential to communicate to your customers the new market, or industry you acquired or products and the new culture etc.. I think re-branding is some shape of form is inevitable in most times to demonstrate the evolution of the company to others.
To be assessed during the Commercial DD. The Brand Equity (value), positioning in current brand portfolio, consumer (association).
I think it also depends on the purpose of the acquisition; What is the drivers behind synergies.
This question should be taken up by the Product Team and reviewed and approved by the BOD. It depends on the history of the brand, the specifics of the transaction, and where the industry and brand goes in the future.
Of course, “it depends” but in my experience it is generally more difficult to introduce a new brand to the marketplace than to integrate a merger target into a stronger or more positive brand. Best case scenario is a fresh brand that retains the hallmark of the individuals.
Agree that it depends. There may be cases where customers recognise the owner (perhaps a prominent individual in the industry) rather than the brand or company name.
The decision to adopt a new brand or continue with the legacy brand after a merger depends on various factors and strategic considerations. I have been working on both situations.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is to realize the business synergies, leading to higher top line and higher profitability. In order to do that, the acquirer needs to think about not only to capture new customers but also to keep the customers of the acquired company. Therefore, if the branding, or to put it another way, the name of the acquired company has a value, then, the acquirer needs to keep it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
