Should a company ever change its name?

Everyone who owns a business knows it would be extremely expensive to go through a company name/identity change. Yet, there are times when such a change could breathe new life into an enterprise. Certainly negative association in the marketplace might provide a catalyst for creating a different brand. And when negative association combines with a subliminal that does not support growth and profit, the benefits of adopting a new name are difficult to ignore.  

So what about BP? Should British Petroleum go back to using Amoco as their name? Or should they consider a totally new brand? This giant corporation faces two issues:

  • There's an ever-mounting distrust by consumers, resulting from mismanagement and unsafe practices around the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf.
  • There's also a major problem with the name BP. A name that is void of vowels can't perform well energetically, because the power of language is carried through the vowels. And the subliminal of this name opens a company to severe loss when and if a lack of ethics taints the scene.

So what does that mean? Negative public association, combined with a subliminally unsuitable name, can continue to spell disaster even years down the road. While executives at BP might balk at the thought, this is a company that would benefit greatly from a new identity, the sooner the better!    

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

smaller | bigger
security image
Write the displayed characters

busy