A case of identity: new monikers and new directions
It has been said that words have meaning and names have power. When the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles released a press statement this month announcing it was dropping the name "Manly" in favour of sponsors Kaspersky, there was immediate shock - and derision.
It took less than two hours for the rugby league club to issue a second media release, clarifying that the new name would only be used internally and at corporate events.
"Kaspersky Sea Eagles" wasn't the only tongue-twisting, and a bit short-lived, name change this year. OneSteel morphed into Arrium, Intersuisse and Austock into Octa Phillip Securities, and Photon into Enero.
Whether to distance themselves from past problems or to reflect a company's new outlook, corporate name changes are not uncommon. But as the reaction to the Sea Eagles announcement showed, not all are well received.
"When companies choose to rename, it's a clear and overt signal of change," said Tom Brigstocke of consultancy Principals. "[But] naming is always a far more demanding process than most people realise."
Mr Brigstocke, whose firm was responsible for naming UBank, NAB's internet-based subsidiary, and remodelling Clay Brick and Pavers Institute into Think Brick, said the best names had to be memorable, authentic, simple, and mean something.
Centro Retail switched to Federation Centres, a move its chairman, Bob Edgar, said was not just a "simple name change" but about demonstrating the transformation the once debt-plagued shopping centre owner had taken in the past year.
"We now have a clear path forward with a new board, refreshed management team and a clear strategic direction," he said.
Paul Harrison, a marketing lecturer at Deakin Business School, said Centro's renaming was a reasonable decision, given the firm's need to jettison its troubled past.
"It's fairly naive to think that by changing the name itself, you'll change everybody's attitude to it," he said. "But I guess in this situation it's about who the target market is. Does it really matter if they change from Centro Retail to Federation Centres? Probably not, for their target market."
OneSteel's decision to choose Arrium as its new name in April was for a different reason - it said the old name made attracting overseas investors harder. The firm wanted to distance itself from the struggling steel industry, while reflecting its exposure to iron ore and the mining services sectors. The choice of Arrium was strategic, its chief executive, Geoff Plummer, said.
"It's a made-up word. But when it has to work in all those countries and it's got to be safe when you Google it, you often fall back [on] made-up words," he told the ABC. The letters "ium" were meant to sound like an element on the periodic table.
Mr Brigstocke said Arrium was one example of how we are now in the world of neology - the coining of new words - brought about when the dotcom boom "sucked up most words in the dictionary".
A new name also comes with a price tag. OneSteel's rebranding exercise was "quite cheap" at about $1 million; other firms could pay between $5 million and $10 million for a name and image overhaul.
But ultimately, whatever name is chosen, companies needed to own it, Mr Harrison said. "Just coming up with a new name isn't enough. Once you decide that this is the name you want, you have to own it and live with it and work with it for as long as you possibly can, because if you don't believe in the name, then your target market won't believe in it either."
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Companies rename themselves for a few common reasons: to signal a new strategic direction, to distance from past problems, or to appeal to new investors or markets. The article notes that renaming is an "overt signal of change" (Tom Brigstocke) but it is largely a communication tool — investors should treat it as a signal to dig into strategy and management, not as proof of improved performance.
A rebrand can change market perception by refreshing the company's image or helping it shed a troubled past (for example Centro Retail becoming Federation Centres). However, marketing lecturer Paul Harrison warns it's naive to expect a name change alone to change attitudes — investors should look for real operational or governance changes behind the new name.
Yes, many firms choose invented names (like OneSteel rebranding to Arrium) because they can work internationally, are easy to trademark and search on the internet, and can be crafted to convey industry links (Arrium used the "ium" ending to echo an elemental feel). The article calls this trend neology: creating new words when common ones are taken.
Costs vary widely. The article cites OneSteel’s rebranding as "quite cheap" at about $1 million, while other firms may spend between $5 million and $10 million on a name and image overhaul, depending on scale and complexity.
Naming consultants quoted in the article say the best names are memorable, authentic, simple and meaningful. A good name should work across target markets and be something the company can truly own and promote over time.
Yes. The article stresses that simply picking a new name isn't enough — firms must 'own it' and back the change with a clear strategy, refreshed management or governance, and consistent actions. Without that follow-through, the new name is unlikely to change investor or customer beliefs.
A name change is a signal to investigate, not a standalone buy or sell trigger. The article suggests renaming can indicate transformation or a strategic pivot, but everyday investors should review financials, leadership changes and the company's stated strategic plans before making investment decisions.
Yes. The article describes the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles announcing they would drop "Manly" in favour of sponsor Kaspersky, which provoked immediate shock and derision and forced the club to clarify the new name would be used only internally and at corporate events. This shows how sensitive some rebrands can be to stakeholders.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
