Post Office highlights name change fever;Howls of protest greeted the PO's decision to be renamed Consignia.

Post Office highlights name change fever;Howls of protest greeted the PO's decision to be renamed Consignia. Mike Anderiesz finds out if it's going to work
From SUNDAY HERALD, January 14th, 2001

BY Mike Anderiesz ALL in all, the 20th century wasn't particularly charitable to the Post Office.
It began with one of the most desirable monopolies in the land but by the
1950s it was losing races to both TV and radio and by the 1980s had seen its
most promising new business ripped away by British Telecom. By the late 1990s,
its core product was commonly known as ''snail mail''. The fact that it was
making bundles of money and expanding fast overseas went largely unnoticed by
the public. Hardly surprising, then, that some bright spark would suggest combining the
long expected change of status to government plc with something more radical.
However, the announcement that, from March 26, the Post Office would be known
as Consignia was met with a wall of disdain that Lady Thatcher would have been
proud of. ''British industry is littered with corporate logos that mean nothing to the
public,'' seethed John Keggie, deputy general secretary of the Communication
Workers Union. ''The public will not thank the Post Office or the government
for repeating the fiasco of British Airways' failed initiative.'' Others saw a more sinister agenda, including Tony Benn – himself an
ex-postmaster general. ''Some company will have been paid an enormous sum,
they will spend thousands more reprinting notepaper and convincing us it's a
good idea. It's all part of this commercial world where anything can mean
anything. The real motive for all this is an eventual sell-off. People will
listen if you say you're selling the Post Office, but who is going to care
what happens to Consignia?'' The company does have more than one justification for a name change. Post
Office is not particularly descriptive of the full range of services, and
positively confusing in markets that already have an organisation of that
name. Furthermore, the company is being unusually smart about the monikers it keeps.
Royal Mail remains as one of the top five most recognised UK brands, so does
the red post box, delivery van, and familiar badge on the front of 19,000 post
offices. Even newer brands such as ParcelForce are guaranteed survival for a
few more years yet. The company is keen to stress business as usual for
domestic customers, while projecting an amorphous new identity to
international partners and potential clients. ''We are already doing much more than the words 'The Post Office' suggest,''
explains chairman Neville Bain. ''We also provide services such as e-commerce
fulfilment, billing and customer management, as well as logistics and
warehousing. The new name will reflect this widening scope of our services as
people change the way they run their businesses and their lives.'' Unfortunately, this is the latest in a long line of evocative but meaningless
name changes: Grand Metropolitan and Guinness became Diageo, National Power
became Innogy, ScottishPower decided to get medieval on us with Thus.
Meanwhile, British Gas went through so many internal changes since 1997 that
they finally settled upon Lattice. Later this year, Arthur Anderson will morph
into Accenture – final proof, perhaps, that the dictionary is following the
abacus into early retirement. It is also safe to assume that consumers will disapprove. Name changes are
always resented, as proven by last year's unpopular switch from Midland Bank
to HSBC or the previous rebadging of British Steel to Corus. However, it is equally true that what the man in the street thinks no longer
weighs that heavily in the mindset of corporate branding. Any company that has
invested £500 million on overseas acquisitions, owns nearly 20 international
companies based in Europe and North America, and derives nearly a third of its
annual £7.5 billion turnover from financial services, telecommunications, home
shopping, utilities and advertising has bigger things to worry about than
sentimental associations with a 350-year-old image. Chief executive John Roberts says: ''The new name describes the full scope of
what the Post Office does in a way that the words 'post' and 'office' cannot.
To 'consign' means 'to entrust to the care of' – which is what each of our
customers does every day, no matter which of our services they use.'' OR does it? The name was conjured up by brand consultants Dragon from a
shortlist of six and as part of a £2m restructuring plan. Claims that it met
with 80% customer approval ratings have not been reflected by media reaction,
which was prominent and brutal. Unfased, the PO's website fought back. ''Our research among international customers makes it very clear that the name
'British Post Office' will not do what we need it to do in the international
market.'' Even so, now that the Post Office sounds like just another brand of cigarette,
at least we can look forward to a slick new marketing strategy. It is surely
only a matter of time before we see a poster campaign showing happy, smiling
people queuing patiently in the sunshine with the slogan 'Ah, that Consignia
feeling!' If you don't like it, blame the Artist again known as Prince. IF the recent spate of corporate rebrandings and bizarre name changes are
getting you down, then blame Prince, writes Darran Gardner. The diminutive
purple popster must at least be partly responsible for this millennium
activity. Or should I say blame the artist formerly known as Prince, or perhaps Slave,
or was it &? Despite enough branding confusion to make a consultant's head
spin, Prince (right), as he renamed himself last year, proved the product –
the man and his music – was identifiable enough to survive the creative
upheaval. Prince's own identity crisis – sparked by his unhappiness with his record
label – may have prefigured the current round of rebranding, but can firms
succeed in an activity that seems just a little silly? The Sunday Herald (soon
to be renamed Scriptus) would like to offer a few tips to those companies and
conglomerates toying with a name change. 1. Make sure the word you choose is nonsense. Say, for example, you run the
Post Office (you know, an office where stuff is posted). Then consider
Consignia. Despite the fact you are the Post Office, you shouldn't take the
risk of being identified with a particular country. And you certainly don't
want to make it obvious what it is you do. 2. Be obscure. Try not to make the change easy. If you are involved in the
power sector, try a transformation from National Power to Innogy, or from
British Gas to Lattice. If you can pronounce the name easily, you're not
paying your consultants enough. Give them copies of a Greek or Latin
dictionary. 3. If you don't spend at least £60 million (just think of all that new
stationery), you will devalue your brand, lose business and the respect of
your customers. If you were called Andersen Consulting, you'd be doomed
without a change to Accenture. Once people realise you are putting a new
''accent on the future'', they will applaud your choice. 4. Waffle. A key element of rebranding is the refocusing on the brand's core
strengths/qualities/ client base, otherwise known as bulls***. You can pay
consultants to write this for you but, strangely, most firms find it comes
naturally. 5. After making sure your new name isn't Quechua for ''child molester'',
trademarked somewhere in the world, or registered as a domain name on the net,
get the artists working on a logo that highlights ''forward movement'' and
''solidity''. If the chief executive's eight-year-old daughter comes up with a
better suggestion for a new name, sack her and give the consultants a raise. If you follow these tips, your customer base will double and your new name
will be heralded as the greatest brand name since Coca-Cola or Microsoft. If
it fails, blame the consultants.SUNDAY HERALD, 14th January 2001