Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
When UK asset manager Aberdeen Group renamed itself four years ago as Abrdn, the company said it had created “a highly differentiated brand”.
While the new moniker stood out, it was arguably for the wrong reasons. The fund group, which had been called Standard Life Aberdeen following a merger, was widely ridiculed for removing most of the vowels from its name.
Creating a “modern, agile, digitally enabled” brand was part of the stated rationale at the time, as was the lack of available internet addresses for more obvious choices such as Aberdeen.
But the derision over the rebrand eventually prompted chief executive Jason Windsor to reverse the decision of his predecessor, Stephen Bird, in an attempt to remove “distractions”. Aberdeen declined to comment.
So what can other companies learn from the episode? Michael Ruby, president of consultancy Park & Battery, says Aberdeen “is a well-established organisation that has tried to appear like an innovative fintech”. The effort failed because it generated a “cognitive dissonance” that “immediately screams they’re trying to play on a fad and it’s not authentic”.
Philip Davies, Emea president at brand consultancy Siegel+Gale, says Aberdeen’s attempt to look modern and digital was like an “embarrassing uncle dancing inappropriately at a wedding. The fatal error is when a brand tries to be something that it’s not. Be yourself. Find ways to make that interesting.”
A common challenge for long-established companies is to appear modern and relevant. It is important to develop a brand that “steps confidently into their future while holding hands with their heritage”, Davies says. “Don’t try to become a teenager — you’re hundreds of years old.
Some of the older players have that reputation, foundation and confidence; they’ve gone through cycles of ups and down, and they’ve survived.”
Marketing experts say a rebranding is not something to be undertaken lightly and they urge executives to consider the motive behind such an exercise.
“When an organisation rebrands it is a symbol to the market of change,” says Ruby. “When they’re done well, it’s truly representative of what that change is within that organisation. The biggest question when speaking with a client who’s considering a rebrand is: why? There needs to be a very good reason. It could be because the company changed its focus, or innovated beyond its historical core offering, or it may be because it has grown and changed due to M&A.”
So how should a company go about a rebrand or name change?
One of the most crucial elements is canvassing the opinions of customers. “Find out what’s important to them,” says Ruby. “The brand is not about an executive leadership team’s vision or intuition alone, it’s about how it’s going to be interpreted and how it will create value for customers and investors. All too often these exercises happen in echo chambers.”
Nick Sherrard, managing director and founder of Label Sessions, an expert network, says often a rebranding decision is confined to a small group of people at a company as it could move the share price. “It’s about being aware of who’s in the circle of trust,” he says. “Companies have to find a way of accessing customers to get their opinion.”
The timing of a rebrand is also important, experts say. Tom Munckton, creative head at brand studio Fold7Design, says about 12 weeks is typically allowed for a branding process — “a very tight window to create massive change”. He says it is important, therefore, to make sure a company is clear on what its objectives are with branding and that all stakeholders see it as “an opportunity to deeply look inward at what makes you great and then propel that into your identity”.
But how can businesses navigate the tension between retaining the value of their heritage while appealing to today’s customers? “The fact that you’re an older brand doesn’t mean you can’t do the new thing,” says Sherrard. “Nike plays to its heritage by talking about its story from 50 years ago very confidently as a reason you should care now.”
He says the insurance and asset management brand Standard Life speaks to a long-established heritage, tracing its roots back to 1825. “What people want in wealth management is a touch of the institution and the trust that comes with being sturdy, which is to some extent defined by not following a fashion.”
Aberdeen Group sold the Standard Life brand in 2021 to insurer Phoenix — which is now considering reviving the name for its holding company. “Standard Life will now become the classic case study of the power of a name,” Sherrard says. “In an age when any brand can look like anyone, very few have a name people know and trust . . . this is an asset that wealth managers need to value much more highly.”
Davies says financial services brands such as Pictet and UBS have “maintained their style really well”, using language that is “thoughtful, as though it comes from a place of wisdom”. Other rebrands have been less successful. He points to Royal Mail’s switch to Consignia in 2001, which it reversed just over a year later.
Some renaming decisions can take time to bed in, such as insurer Norwich Union’s move in 2009 to rebrand as Aviva, which initially garnered a mixed reaction.
As the Aberdeen example shows, the stakes are high in a rebrand. Getting it wrong leads to further renaming processes and costs more in the long term.