Brand devalues: New names can mean new problems
It would be stretching business theory a bit far to suggest that the recent deterioration in the postal service was the result of the change of name from Post Office to Consignia. But it clearly did not help. Even if there was no causal relationship between these events they were part of the same deterioration. You do not need a Harvard business degree to know it was totally batty to take well respected brands with international recognition, like Royal Mail and Post Office, and let corporate spin doctors turn them into names with no meaning and with nothing to do with the activities of the company.
The only plea in Consignia’s defence is that a lot of other companies were doing equally batty things. Scottish Power became Thus, British Steel morphed into Corus, Tarmac into Carillion, Transco – which began life as British Gas – into Lattice, FI Group into Xansa and the wireless activities of BT Cellnet into mm02. The only one that can look back with any satisfaction is Accenture, which changed its name after detaching itself from the Arthur Andersen empire before the latter’s links with Enron undermined the value of its brand.
At least Consignia is now admitting the problem. Allan Leighton, Consignia’s “interim chairman” (even his job description sounds like a letter having difficulty reaching its destination) concedes that the name is now “attracting derision”. He admits the corporation has lost a lot of history as a result. He is supported by Peter Skyte, an official of the Amicus union, itself the result of a branding change last month following a merger between two unions (the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical, and Manufacturing, Science and Finance). If the name Consignia is consigned to history it might mark the nadir of the Post Office’s fortunes. Consignia says it can’t afford another brand-over at this time. The question is whether it can afford not to.
