Brand Naming: Focus on the Practical

Just when the bold days of silly brand naming appeared to be over, along comes another act of marketing madness.

In October of 06’ Swiss Re won the race to buy GE Life, the UK life assurance arm of General Electric, with a bid of £465m. The deal included about 400,000 policies with total assets of about £8bn. The one asset that Swiss Re could not retain, however, was the GE parent brand.

Six months after the acquisition, and having sought the help of identity firm Kent Lyons, the company launched its new brand: Tomorrow. The colon is important, because Tomorrow is not the date when it's going to happen – in March of last year, Tomorrow became the new name of the brand. Are you still with me?

According to Tomorrow's head of marketing communications, Kirsty Macpherson: 'We wanted to change to a name that expressed the importance of the products that we offer and what they represent. We are here to help people make the best possible financial plans for retirement to ensure income in later life, so "Tomorrow" is the perfect choice.'

From a marketer's point of view, she is right. This is a name born of creative thinking and one that is consistent with breakthrough communications. The name is very distinctive when you consider Tomorrow's more traditionally branded competitors. It is also a name that allows maximum future flexibility when it comes to brand extension and future growth.

It was interesting, however, that the spokeswoman for this rebranding was a marketing communications person and not someone more senior or in a non-marketing role. This suggests that the marketers ran the rebrand, and that usually means exciting but impractical identity decisions.

In the great debacle of PWC's rebranding to Monday, it was the marketers who led the charge and the senior partners who reversed the decision less than 24 hours later. Marketers like to focus on differentiation and identity and communication - all fine goals. But a brand must encompass a lot more than breakthrough communications to succeed.

I am sceptical that working for Tomorrow will be a lot of fun for the majority of its employees who are, after all, mostly insurance people. One of the biggest tests of brand equity is the reaction that workers get in the pub when they tell people who they work for. If Tomorrow is lucky, its employees will simply refer back to the GE Life brand that used to employ them for clearer social co-ordinates. In the worst-case scenario, employees will disclaim the name as a dumb marketing ploy, therein damaging the company's brand equity and the employees' long-term likelihood of staying put.

Then there are the existing and target customers. Baby-boomers are more adventurous than previous retirement generations, but surely many will bridle at investing their savings in a firm with a modish name that sprung on them out of nowhere. This is a generation that grew up in the era of big, safe, traditional corporate brands with clear brand architecture. They probably selected GE, or its predecessor National Mutual, for precisely that reason. And now their money is being looked after by Tomorrow?

Let's hope in the long run Tomorrow has done its homework. Maybe it pre-tested the name with its target and existing customers and got a glowing response. Perhaps it ran a major employee brand engagement programme prior to the name change and they are all now 100% behind the new brand. Let's also assume that the senior management are delighted with the name and are embracing it at the boardroom level.

It's very easy to be cynical about big, bold moves. Perhaps the world is ready for this kind of branding. Perhaps it is still too soon for Tomorrow.

30 SECONDS ON ... TOMORROW

- Tomorrow's head of marketing communications, Kirsty Macpherson, added the following insights on the company's change in brand identity:

- 'Tomorrow will be a vibrant business, building on the successes of the past. With a history dating back to 1896, we have demonstrated our dedication to the market and customers through innovations such as enhanced annuities and Income Drawdown.'

- We will be the same company, same people and offer the same high level of integrity, commitment and service for our clients. We will simply have a different name.

- Tomorrow will continue to build on its existing strengths as a leading provider of pre- and post-retirement products.

- We intend to continue to be an innovative, key player in the market and will continue to sell our products exclusively through financial advisers.'

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Comments

[James Shewmaker]

This brand ID comes with built-in cynicism, all based around the idea that "Tomorrow Never Comes." We'll get back with you on that, Tomorrow.

[Martin Jelsema]

All good points and impartially stated.

One of the most telling symptoms of a poor naming choice is when it needs to be explained. The name needs to stand on its own. That doesn't mean it should be a three-word descriptive name. That's the worst kind. But it should have an immediate and recognizable association or relevance.

AutoNation had the same type of problem when they became "GO". I thought it a poor name for an auto dealer even though there is some relevance to transport. Now, after several years the wags have applied connotations (GO elsewhere, GO away) to dealing with this company that changed its name but not, apparently, their brand essence.