STICKING WITH IT
Today’s article about AOL on Fastcompany.com includes a quote we made about changing AOL’s name. The quote was that changing the name would have been the “lazy consultant” answer. I’d like to explain why in a little more detail.
The world we live in today is more transparent than ever. As a result, changing names has become a much more sensitive topic than it used to be. It will never be the ‘fresh start’ as is often claimed, as the court of online opinion will be swift to point out who you really are, and to ask the question “what have you got to hide?”
AOL is a controversial brand for many reasons. Against this, changing the name would simply have been perceived as a defensive move, a weak position from which to enter life as a newly independent company. Had the name have been changed, the very same people who today say it should be changed, would instead be highlighting the name change as a “desperate move” to break with the past.
AOL are not Altria. They don’t make products that kill people. Their problem isn’t fundamentally that they are hated. Their problem is one of relavence and of perceptions. Their future is as a content brand, not an access brand. That had to be our singular point of focus.
AOL also has a huge strength in that everyone already knows who they are. If you change the name, you introduce the significant cost of building as much awareness all over again - money that instead will be better spent on developing the AOL product experience.
In sticking with AOL, they’re not hiding from anything. They’re stepping into the future with a confident stance, and focusing all of their attention on what really matters - creating amazing content experiences for their users.
(Paul Worthington)