When GSB and Churches first announced plans to merge back in July 2011, many within the local marketing community figured that here was an opportunity to leverage one of the two brands to much greater market dominance.

However when they announced plans to launch a new brand name the general view was “ok let’s see what they come with.”

The end result was First Heritage Cooperative Credit Union a complete remake and restart. Big mistake or strategic move…only time will tell?

According to marking expert and managing partner of Synergy Communications, Mario Romans, a well established brand name with tremendous recognition and recall is a huge asset and competitive advantage for any organization. “In general, leveraging the strength of a well known name is always a more practical and potent alternative to introducing a new name or a name change effort given the level of investments involved in establishing awareness of a new name.”

“It is my opinion that the stronger of the two brands (Churches or GSB Credit Union) should have been used as the platform for future growth. Another possible alternative would have been to generate a new name which involves some combination of the original names. A significant downside to any re-branding effort is that no amount of ad spending can guarantee the success of the new name, that is, whether or not it will become a household name or if it will contribute significantly to future sales” Romans insists.

Courtney Lodge (l) ceo of GSB and Basil Naar (r) ceo of Churches.

“The rationale behind the name First Heritage is based on the fact that CCCU is founded on the merger of three churches that stood as historical examples of institutions of integrity and merit, Secondly, GSB is recognized as the first and oldest credit union in Jamaica, which has served the public sector for over 60 years, having had one Transfer of Engagement. Both credit unions have a combined heritage of over 100 years and both survived the financial meltdown of the 1990s,” said Basil Naar, CEO of Churches, in a release put out by both companies at the time.

It would be very interesting and instructive to hear how many people actually took heritage into account when selecting a financial institution to conduct business with.

An option that was clearly available was co-branding GSB with Churches leveraging the strength of both brands. A recent example of this is Wisynco’s co-branding of WATA with Ocean Spray. The Wisynco Group, whose aggressive marketing and distribution strategy helped make Jamaica, per capita, the market leader for Ocean Spray’s cranberry juices, added the Ocean Spray brand to its own line of purified water. The product, Ocean Spray WATA, was launched.

Sometimes early into a product’s or business life cycle there is a strategic need to rebrand to take advantage of prevailing market opportunities or to reposition the company to better attract more lucrative business as in the case of Carlton Savannah REIT that sought a new identity less than six month after it launched.

Jamaica’s first and only real-estate investment trust, Carlton Savannah REIT Jamaica Limited opted for a name change to Kingston Properties Limited as Director Fayval Williams said the name change reflected plans for the company to build out a more diversified portfolio of real estate investments.

But why do companies like GSB and Churches rebrand?

In the book Why Johnny Can’t Brand (Portfolio 2005), authors Bill Schley and Carl Nichols explore when and why companies should rebrand. They argue that many companies rebrand prematurely or unnecessarily, shooting good brands in the foot instead of strengthening them.

The three most common catalysts for misguided rebranding are:

1. New executives trying to make their mark

2. The need for instant gratification trumping long term commitment

3. Organizational malaise/boredom.

According to Michael Teeling, an enterprise technology marketing consultant in Silicon Valley, Rebranding doesn’t always have to mean a complete overhaul.

Rebranding can in fact have nothing to do with redesigning visual assets (logo, tagline) and instead focus entirely on operational or internal mindset changes. Rebranding is essentially an exercise in realignment. It is rediscovering the single unifying principle that aligns the organization with its customers. It means listening as those who bought tell you why you are special, why your offer resonates, and why your product is relevant. It is evolution more than revolution, but holds great power to re-energize a company.

Did the directors of GSB and Churches take these factors into account?

A noted and well respected Graphic Designer who has worked for a number of well established local and regional brands offered the following observation when asked to comment on the rebranding effort. “While travelling with a friend the other day we came across one the new FHC billboard outside of Kingston. I asked the person to give me their impression of the message communicated on the board and the type of business the company was in. The response was “is that a courier company or customs type of business…. Not sure what they do….what do they do?”

“The fact is the FHC logo design does not reflect the nature and type of business they are in and quite frankly looks cheap compared to the two previous logo designs either of which would have a much better option.” He said.

“My personal views are that all rebranding efforts should add some element of interest, freshness, energy and vitality to the brand. I cannot say for sure if that was accomplished with the new look logo. In my view, the new visual symbol appears staid and uninteresting and does not communicate modern or contemporary – but again the new name contains the word heritage” Romans opined about the new FHC logo.

But are we confusing the company brand with the product brand. If that were the case then maybe the FHC can work….maybe.

In a recent article noted international brand and marketing strategist Al Ries chairman of Ries & Ries, an Atlanta-based marketing strategy firm offered the following insight.

“It’s obvious that Procter & Gamble is a company brand, but what’s an Apple?

“Like P&G, Apple is a company brand. But unlike P&G, the Apple company brand is a powerful motivating force for buying Apple product brands including the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.”

“Every company should have a powerful company brand, but they don’t. Except for a handful of companies like Johnson & Johnson, most company brands influence very few consumers.”

In the same article he asked the following question:  How do you build a company brand?

“Many marketing pundits have a lot to say about this subject. Some typical approaches include:

• We need to communicate our culture, our concern for the environment and our sustainability programs.
• Our approach is purpose-driven marketing, based on social responsibility and standing for something that inspires consumers.
• We believe in innovation, only launching new products and services that are on the cutting edge of design and performance.

All of these things are worth doing, but they don’t do much to build a company brand. The problem is the noise level.”

He concludes his point stating “There’s nowhere near enough room in the average consumer’s mind to file away facts about all of these companies, or even a tiny fraction of them. And frankly, most people don’t care about companies; they care about products and product brands they can buy.”

If you are considering Rebranding, make sure it’s not for one of the reasons Schey and Nichols cite above. A quick brand audit is a great way to get a read on if your brand is truly misaligned, not just fatigued. A reinvigorated brand can deliver more qualified sales leads and stronger customer loyalty, but brand equity needs time, dedication and maintenance to grow. Rebranding should not be undertaken lightly, and management support is a critical success factor. BM