JWT

As I did my blogroll today, I found Nick's post on J. Walter Thompson rebranding to JWT. Rebranding through naming happens to be my subject matter these days, so I couldn't help myself coming up with a few musings on the topic:

Jeffrey [JWT's CEO] argues that just as the corporate DNA has changed, so must the name. Frankly, I'm a bit cynical [about] such proclamations.

Right, if Nick is cynical about JWT's (just like any other big corporation's) ability to truly change. Wrong, if this cynicism is related to the ability of a new name to signal a change of corporate DNA or direction. It can. I saw it happening to companies I've renamed myself.

What message does "JWT" communicate? While J. Walter Thompson had an enviable, upper-class ring as it rolled smoothly off the tongue, JWT communicates nothing. JWT could mean a manufacturing firm, or a shipping company, or even a start-up tow-truck company.

Wrong. JWT communicates exactly what J. Walter Thompson does, only maybe in a different style. Nothing more, nothing less. To industry outsiders, the abbreviation makes no difference whatsoever. To insiders, including clients and prospects, JWT is already associated (or easily associable) with the company. The quotation above could easily communicate the same thing about the qualities of an abbreviated name even if it replaced JWT with IBM or BBC. But in the latter two cases it would become obvious that there's more to a brand name than just the words, morphemes or sounds. I'm talking about brand equity. And JWT preserves, IMHO, at least 99% of J. Walter Thompson's equity.

Ask yourself: You are a company looking to communicate verve, excitement, innovation and an ability to connect with customers. Would you hire a firm seeking to send the same message who renamed itself "JWT?"

Contrary to the implied 'no' to this question, I'd answer "It depends. If the firm is good enough, why not?". The brand offering itself and, to a variable extent, the brand equity are key decision factors, not the name. I'm a namer and I should maybe evangelize the huge importance of the brand name, but I'm also a brand strategist and I know  there are more important things (than a name) that make or break a business.

In the end, however, I fully support Nick's opinion that JWT's name change was misbegotten (I'd have said purely cosmetic). But I have my own set of reasons for it:

1. There was nothing wrong with the old name. Naming rule #1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. If there was, changing it by abbreviation achieved nothing in the way of shedding any negative equity. To the vast majority of its audience, JWT means exactly what J. Walter Thompson does.
3. For the same reason, the new name does not effectively communicate change of corporate DNA or direction, but of verbal style at most. That reduces the name change to nothing more than a publicity stunt. And a boon for JWT's stationery and signage suppliers.

These being said, I must finally add that I and Nick could both be totally wrong in our assumptions and opinions, as long as we don't have a definitive lists of reasons for Jeffrey's decision. Things are so very different when you look at them from within.