Recently, with the Spanish saving banks reform we are attending the creation and deployment of new financial institution brands. What is the aim of these changes? Changing a name is actually quite different to changing a brand. Logos had changed, but what about the internal structure? Does it respond to a concrete strategy? A brand has its value; create a new one has costs.
The following chart shows a rough cost of each step supporting the change of a brand. Spanish financial system is known as one of the most serious in Europe. This consideration leads me to ask:
- Is such change indispensable? Considering the crisis, is this the right moment?
- Since it is not a legal obligation, was it necessary to change the brand? Couldn’t they think of umbrella brand systems, like ‘Star Alliance’?
- Does it communicate confidence to investors and clients? And to employees?
- Couldn’t be better to explain to clients the change from saving bank to bank instead of changing the brand?
- Is it possible to come together seven brands into a unique one? And the culture?
- With such names, can the enterprises expand all over the world?
Maybe saving banks had rushed too much. The new names are lacked of originality and/or rather similar, like Bankia, merger between seven saving banks, and Rankia, community of finance interested persons. Others didn’t thought either about the sense of the word they were going to use as a new name: existing brands, animal name, etc. being deep in a small crisis.
Now that the implementation of those brands has started, the aim for new bank entities and their communication department is to convince their stakeholders before to take the company public in a maximum of one year; they have to get renown
- Do you think they can do it?
- What do you think about the new brands?
- Do you consider it will have a positive effect on the bank business?
- How can new banks transmit this confidence that Spanish financial sector needs so much?
- Will they be influent in an international way? Is it possible?