Re-Naming Brands – A waste of money and value

The NY Times has an article here about Y.M.C.A. changing its name to “The Y”. As you can imagine, the thought alone has us cringing. Do you remember the loss of money the AT&T switch caused?

Following some quotes from the article with comments. We could not resist:

The organization previously known as the Y.M.C.A. is henceforth to be called “the Y.”

Good luck in the fight against Yahoo and its Y!
In search online, were YMCA owns all top ranks, now they will be up against anything related to the Y chromosome, The Y Yoga label and of course The Y! Music store, the Y! Sports blogs, etc. 

What is the sense in trading a strong, positive monopoly against a weaker position?

One of the nation’s most iconic nonprofit organizations, founded 166 years ago in England as the Young Men’s Christian Association, is undergoing a major rebranding, adopting as its name the nickname everyone has used for generations.

“It’s a way of being warmer, more genuine, more welcoming, when you call yourself what everyone else calls you,” said Kate Coleman, the organization’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer.

In accordance to this, BMW should change to Beamer? Because people call you Bob, you should change your name from Robert?  Of course not. Having a friendly nickname is great and those, who use it, feel better. 

The challenge, Mr. Disend said, is to continue to make consumers and donors aware of the history, tradition and meaning behind the letters. “It’s particularly a danger in the nonprofit space, where the story and awareness of the history and mission is critical when trying to raise money,” he said.

If Mars was not able, to establish “Masterfoods” as its company name, what makes the management believe, they will succeed? It will be interesting to see, how many donations YMCA will loose thanks to this ludicrous action.

According to the article, membership at YMCA has been flat since 2003. In this situation, Fiddling with the brand and logo is a classic answer of advertising people without any sales and marketing knowledge and sense.

Byblos Markenlizenzen Wäsche + Strand

Laut Fabeau vergab Byblos Markenlizenzen für Dessous und Beachwear an Lormar.

Die Lizenz läuft fünf Jahre und erste Kollektionen sollen diesen Sommer auf den Markt kommen.

Lormar ist Hersteller von Dessous und Beachwear. Anders als bei Fabeau berichtet, kaufte  der Hersteller den italienischen Marktführer im mittleren Modesegment Pielle, nicht umgekehrt. Die Gruppe ist auch Lizenznehmer von Playboy.

Byblos Brand License Underwear + Beach

According to Fabeau Byblos signed brand licenses for underwear and beachwear with Italian Lormar.

The license runs for five years, first product shall be available this summer.

Lormar is manufacturer and – different to the report – also bought the Italian mid-price manufacturer Pielle, not the other way around. The group also holds a license from Playboy.

Markenwert als Teil des Unternehmenswertes

Laut Handelsblatt zahlt Nicolas Berggruen für den Karstadt-Konzern den mittlerweile bekannten 1 Euro.  Aber für die Markenrechte an Karstadt bezahlt Nicolas Berggruen 5 Millionen Euro.

Bemerkenswert daran sind zwei Dinge:

Trotz Quartalsgewinn ist der operative Karstadt Konzern kein Geld wert.

Der Markenwert von Karstadt beträgt nur 5 Mio. Euro. Aber wenigstens ist er realisierbar.

Bedeutung von Marken in der Bekleidung

Das Handelsblatt veröffentlicht eine Studie zur Bedeutung von Marken bei Bekleidung.
Hier einige Zahlen:

Krawatte: nur 15 % aller Männer ist das Logo wichtig.

Mantel: nur knapp 19 % achten auf Marke

Socken: nur für 24 Prozent ist Marke wichtig

Wäsche: nur 33 % schenken der Marke Interesse

Schuhe: 57 % achten auf Marke

Jeans: über 60 % ist die Marke wichtig

Das sei allen Markenartiklern ans Herz gelegt, die ihre Marke unbedingt per Lizenz in die Modeindustrie tragen wollen. Marke ist dort weniger wichtig, als weithin angenommen.