From Comcast to XFinity–What Was the Strategy?

Many critics have undoubtedly spoken before me, but I need to add my name to the chorus. Renaming a corporation is probably the hardest thing to do in the world of branding, but that is not an excuse for a poorly constructed name, like XFinity.

In fact, Time magazine has recognized it as one of the top 10 worst corporate name changes.

Let’s begin with the facts.

1. The Comcast brand has been a lightning rod for ill will as well as the butt of jokes (thanks to the infamous YouTube video of the sleeping Comcast installer)
2. The recent acquisition of NBC from GE is the kind of event that merits a full examination of the corporate brand, in order to determine the potential “stretch” of the acquiring company into a new category
3. Research may have shown that the current name is too strongly linked with cable and internet, and that newer offerings, such as pay-per-view, are unduly overshadowed. For example, did you know that Comcast owns Fandango and Daily Candy…or the Philadelphia 76ers?

In my opinion, there is pretty strong justification for considering a name change. But how they got to Xfinity, I do not know. Then again, maybe I do. If the Marketing executives at Comcast spoke to the major corporate identity firms, they probably learned that naming is a time consuming, expensive business and a legal nightmare to boot. Or maybe they retained a firm that was unable to come up with a name that everyone liked, or could be legally cleared without significant expense. (I always warn my clients that naming will break your heart. The best name is virtually always taken.)

The clock was ticking, and Comcast wanted to make a statement and an event about the addition of the NBC properties to its portfolio. As it so happened, the name XFinity was already owned by Comcast–due to the beta launch of something called “Fancast Xfinity”.

Three aspects of this name are seriously troublesome. First, it is awkward to say. Anything that begins with an X is daunting.

Second, X is often a shorthand for pornography, or sexually explicit material.

Third, to anyone who spends time on linguistic matters, the symbolism of the letter x is quite negative. To wit:

To remove or invalidate by or as if by running a line through or wiping clean. annul, blot (out),cancel, cross (off or out), delete, efface, erase, expunge, obliterate, rub (out), scratch (out), strike (out), undo, wipe (out). Law vacate. See continue/stop/pause.  Source: Thesaurus

So if “Finity” is supposed to represent the concept of “infinity”, then the X cancels it out. If “finity” is supposed to mean “finite”, then the x cancels out the finite and I guess it becomes “infinity”. It’s essentially a double negative.

A new name has to work hard enough as it is without having to counteract hard-wired negative dimensions. If you throw enough money at it, I guess it will become less obnoxious with time, but it’s going to be one of those names that will always rub me the wrong way–like SYFY.

The Ten Brands I Give Thanks For

It’s Thanksgiving day, and although it sounds frivolous, I have spent the last few days thinking about what brands I really care about, that make a positive difference in my life, and that perform against higher standards than most. This is highly unscientific, personal, and random. But these companies make products that drive preference–mine at least–and stay the course in an increasingly crowded marketplace.

You will notice that the cool advertising is not  the reason these brands have been chosen. Cool advertising–or any advertising–is not the same as a brand. The same goes for the logo.

The list is in alphabetical order:

American Express For not recklessly pursuing the sub-prime market. For the wonderful Platinum card, which has earned every penny of the annual fee by giving me access to airline clubs on bad travel days. For retaining the original card member year on the face of the card.

Apple For gorgeous design, intuitive controls, and perfection in packaging. For not selling out to Intel’s co-branding dollars and keeping its advertising clean and distinctive.

Bergdorf Goodman For not contributing to the homogenization of the world and maintaining its one, spectacular and historic location. For merchandise that you can’t get elsewhere.

Felco For the best pruners in the world, in all sizes. 15 years and counting.

Google Voted in by my daughter, “because it answers all her questions,” and it’s hard to argue that. Besides, it isn’t afraid to take the logo out for a walk now and then. All I ask is that they stick with their mantra, “Don’t be evil”.

Hershey* For giving new meaning (or the original meaning) to “corporate social responsibility”. For employee retention and loyalty that few can claim. For staying true to its roots, even in extensions like the amusement park and hotel. *If they buy Cadbury and mess with the Trust, they are off the list.

Martha Stewart The brand, not the person. For inspiring me to get back in touch with my inner crafter, and make my home a better place. For an unerring eye for color, composition and quality. For products that are manufactured to high standards.

NPR For miraculous programing that brings a fresh face and point of view to whatever it covers. For Car Talk, Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me, Jonathan Schwartz, An American Life, all of which have kept me in my car long past the time for me to get out.

Olay For reinventing itself from an obscure, old lady brand, to a well-priced, well-researched, line of skin care products just before the recession hit. Well done!

OXO For changing forever the experience of peeling a potato–in other words, ergonomic innovation. For standing out among all the endless kitchen tools.

The minute I finish this post, I will undoubtedly come up with other winning brands. I’ll just keep them until next year.

How about you?

G.M. Yet Again–Thoughts on Brand Architecture and Corporate Branding

GM recently announced that it will remove its “G.M. Mark of Excellence” logo from all car models.

Let’s see. By my reckoning, it took about 4 years (2001 to 2005) for corporate to persuade its individual car brands to attach the supplemental logo to its cars. It stuck around for about 4 years (2005 to 2009). We will see what they do four years from now. My bet is that it stays off.

What went wrong? This is a case where the intentions were good, but perhaps not fully thought out.

As I have said before in other posts, GM is a “holding company” structure. This is totally different from any other car company, because all of the rest of them share a model name with the corporate parent. 

My guess is that GM was reacting to Ford’s “Quality is Job One” campaign, and wanted to make a similar claim. It may also have wanted some economies of scale in advertising–promoting different marques in the same ads. 

But no matter what GM’s “corporate brand” message may have been, there was no real way to reinforce it visually. Well, actually there was a way. They could have created one master template for all collateral material and showroom signage that made GM more prominent. Then they would have needed to pour a lot of money into it. Not a likely scenario! So, they created a (relatively) tiny logo to be placed on all vehicles. This undoubtedly caused consternation among the different car brand managers and designers in terms of where to put the darn thing. Nowhere prominent, that’s for sure! A car with two logos just makes no sense.

As far as I can see, the only role for the GM corporate brand is among shareholders, employees, government officials, and the media. That’s the way it’s supposed to be when you are a holding company. Since GM is the only such automotive company with that structure, it must be kinda lonely out there.

Bank as Ally? A Novel Concept

GMAC announced that it has changed its name to Ally Bank. As someone who has been involved in corporate naming, I have no interest in quibbling over whether or not it is a good or bad name. Naming is notoriously difficult. If the naming team did it right, there would have been specific criteria around the name type, a clear target audience, and, presumably, testing.

Ally is a decent, in fact, a strong word. The meaning is nice. It’s a little uncomfortable at first, because it’s similar to a woman’s name (pronounced all-ey) and of course the weight loss medicine alli. But it seems to have been “clean” in trademark screening and they were able to obtain the domain: http://www.ally.com.  A simple domain like that is rare indeed. And there is a bank in the Phillipines, Allied Bank, which uses the tag-line, “Your ally. Your bank.” Legal wrangling must have occurred over that one.

The corporate color is a refreshing shade of purple, and the identity is simple, modern, but somewhat sterile and impersonal. The swooshy things don’t do much for me. But they seem to be trying to avoid the usual happy, smiley, diversity-centric Getty images that we see in bank branches, websites and ATM’s.

 

This new bank is doing and saying all the right things: big print, limited product array, differentiation from “traditional” banks, simple interface, etc. And I applaud the company for this.

Ally Bank is different from other banks right now, though, and it’s an important difference: as far as I can tell, Ally is currently in the business of only taking deposits. They are way overextended on the credit side from their heritage product–car loans. I have worked in banking, and believe me, it is much easier to be open, friendly and transparent about deposits than it is about lending money, which requires deep scrutiny of an individual’s creditworthiness. And significant documentation (even if the print is large).  And an ability to say no. And an ability to repossess. Icky stuff. In other words, when it comes to lending, a bank cannot always be an ally. 

I’m not trying to be jaded or negative or skeptical. I just have a memory of another fresh face that was going to reinvent banking by being friendly, open, convenient, and available to all. That bank was called WaMu. We know how that story ended. Let’s hope for a better outcome here.

What’s in a name? For AIG, waaaay too much.

Just when I thought I had seen it all, I read that AIG has actually removed its name from its headquarters building on Wall Street. I have been wracking my brain for the last 24 hours, trying to think of anything that compares. I can’t.

There doesn’t seem to be a precedent. Certainly not to the extent of buses filled with indignant and self-righteous citizens who peer at the A.I.G executive homes in the estate sections of Fairfield, Westport and the like. It doesn’t matter that 99% of the fury is misplaced and directed at the stoic survivors who still work there and who had no part in the massive trading losses.

All that seems to matter is that AIG clearly believes that its name, which was on the equivalent of life support, must be expunged from the public consciousness. They have hired Lippincott to come up with a fresh name. That is one tough assignment.

Think back to other corporate scandals. Enron drew universal hatred and scorn, too, but it went out of business and its name and award winning logo went with it. Barings, another financial concern pulled down by a rogue trader, was sold, then cut up and resold in little pieces. (Baring Asset Management still exists, as a subsidiary of MassMutual, but that’s all that is left.) Drexel Burnham Lambert hung on for a while, post-Milken, but also died. WorldCom, luckily, had a former corporate name–MCI–in its hip pocket. But when it rebranded, it had a lot of baggage to overcome:

The company’s switch to the MCI name in its advertising and promotion that there is no mention whatsoever of WorldCom. Normally, a “new and improved” campaign makes at least passing mention to the company’s former identity.

In this case, WorldCom’s excesses are seen as so excessive that the company disdains even the slightest mention. “It’s a cancer,” one executive said.

Sounds suspiciously like what senior executives about AIG must be saying about their own identity. It must be a truly miserable place to be right now, as was made clear in the Op-Ed letter in today’s New York Times, Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

As I have said before, naming should not be undertaken lightly. In this case, I agree with management’s decision. It would be interesting to know what is their budget for re-branding, though.

At the end of the day, I hope that “NewCo” spends even more to inspire their people and reassure them of the rectitude and viability of the company. They deserve it.