I still remember how aggrieved a friend was when 'Abbey National' became 'Abbey'. She didn't feel that a girl's name was appropriate for an august building society. I haven't asked her yet about the latest news - that Abbey is to become 'Santander', reflecting its Spanish ownership - but I doubt she will be impressed. If a customer is annoyed, how will an employee feel when their place of work is rebranded?
For many people, it's about more than just a name. It's about the identity and the ethos of the organisation. And if a company has spent years building up a brand and a culture, what happens when it suddenly disappears, or is swamped by another, stronger, identity? Abbey has been subsumed by a brand that while well known overseas, has little profile here - so how will staff react? There's the potential impact on recruitment, too - regardless of the economic situation, applicants will be looking for a strong employer brand. What part should HR play in establishing the new corporate identity - and how?
Comments (2)
Posted by Adam Winterton | June 1, 2009 4:22 PM
Isn’t it refreshing when (eventually) an organisation calls itself by its own name? Why would anyone be annoyed with borrowing from, saving with or working for a Spanish company? Globalisation, transnationalisation – whatever you call it aren’t we benefiting from a business world that ignores national boundaries? What are we worried about – is Alan Davies suddenly going to cut his hair and don a suit of lights?
I love the fact that the Spanish property market was for some time boosted by Brits buying homes on the Costa del Sol – and now a Spanish company owns over a quarter of all mortgages back in blighty.
They’ve communicated a name change – but just how far will they go culturally? This is where HR could have some influence. Just imagine: call centre advisers will be encouraged to take an afternoon nap and Mr Bradford will swap his bowler for a sombrero.
Whatever next?
Posted on June 1, 2009 16:22
Posted by Graeme Holiday | June 1, 2009 4:25 PM
Communication will be critical to engage employees with the new Santander brand. HR should sit at the heart of this communication. Terry Leahy’s quote ‘Your employer brand isn’t what you think it is, it’s what your people tell you it is’ is still timely and trying to impose a new brand on employees will not be effective.
Brand ambassadors should be identified from both organisations to represent the DNA of the group and HR's role will be in ensuring employees understand how the brand behaviours impact on them. Externally, the re-brand is an opportunity to reposition Santander as an employer, but this must reflect and support the internal brand - consistency is imperative.
Posted on June 1, 2009 16:25