American International Assurance (AIA)’s hunt for a regional agency to reposition the insurance giant is understandable. After all, its parent company AIG has become a lightning rod for anti-capitalist outrage following several Government bail-outs and a scandal over bonuses.
What does a brand like this need to do to rescue its reputation? A change of name or a new logo will not be enough, say branding experts. “Strong brands are all about trust,” says Craig Briggs, managing director Asia-Pacific for Brandimage. “When trust is lost it becomes a strong emotional negative. Not only has the product functionally disappointed but emotionally it has betrayed the buyer.”
That view is echoed by Alan VanderMolen, president Asia-Pacific for Edelman. “It does not really matter if it calls itself AIA or Bob if the brand is not built around the fundamental pillars of trust in the eyes of each of its key stakeholders: Government, employees, agents, consumers and media.”
In AIA’s case, of course, this is slightly unfair. As the Asian arm of AIG, it is not to blame for the corporate excesses in the US that tarnished its name. However, the fact that there is no obvious scapegoat - an individual who can be fired, for example - may make bouncing back more difficult.
“The road to recovery may be a long one,” says David Ko, executive vice-president, Waggener Edstrom, who points out that rehabilitation depends on whether the damage caused was internal or external, confined to a particular market or global. “One point in its favour is the natural separation of the AIG parent brand from AIA,” adds Ko, “So fortunately there is not a pressing need to redesign the corporate identity.”
Pratik Thakar, executive vice-president and chief planning officer China for McCann Worldgroup, argues that as AIA in Asia is seen as an institution, it can quietly drop the AIG association. “That’s the benefit of dual brand strategy, one can conveniently use the stronger brand and keep the weaker brand off the radar,” he says.
He points to current repositioning campaigns in China following the tainted milk scandal. “Both Mengniu and Yili are showcasing their larger ‘dairy’ expertise and credentials through yoghurt, ice cream and fresh milk, to downplay their ‘baby milk powder’ past.”
AIA is not the first to seek recovery through a rebrand. US telecoms WorldCom decided to rebrand as MCI in 2003 after a multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Sometimes a rebranding can pay off - the switch of Andersen Consulting to Accenture paid dividends when sibling accounting firm Arthur Andersen was implicated in the Enron scandal (though in this case the rebranding took place before the scandal).
Ian Thubron, executive vice-president TBWAAsia-Pacific, says that a brand cannot successfully detach from a disgraced parent company if the fundamental business remains the same. “AIA must be bold. It must signal a clear departure and change. It won’t change the perception of consumers if it’s business as usual.”
Briggs concludes: “This is not a time for pride to get in the way, nor is it the time to move without a firm plan. It is also a message that must penetrate the brand’s internal organisation. And it should come from the top of the company not through a mouthpiece for the top.”
Got a view?
Email [email protected]
What does a brand like this need to do to rescue its reputation? A change of name or a new logo will not be enough, say branding experts. “Strong brands are all about trust,” says Craig Briggs, managing director Asia-Pacific for Brandimage. “When trust is lost it becomes a strong emotional negative. Not only has the product functionally disappointed but emotionally it has betrayed the buyer.”
That view is echoed by Alan VanderMolen, president Asia-Pacific for Edelman. “It does not really matter if it calls itself AIA or Bob if the brand is not built around the fundamental pillars of trust in the eyes of each of its key stakeholders: Government, employees, agents, consumers and media.”
In AIA’s case, of course, this is slightly unfair. As the Asian arm of AIG, it is not to blame for the corporate excesses in the US that tarnished its name. However, the fact that there is no obvious scapegoat - an individual who can be fired, for example - may make bouncing back more difficult.
“The road to recovery may be a long one,” says David Ko, executive vice-president, Waggener Edstrom, who points out that rehabilitation depends on whether the damage caused was internal or external, confined to a particular market or global. “One point in its favour is the natural separation of the AIG parent brand from AIA,” adds Ko, “So fortunately there is not a pressing need to redesign the corporate identity.”
Pratik Thakar, executive vice-president and chief planning officer China for McCann Worldgroup, argues that as AIA in Asia is seen as an institution, it can quietly drop the AIG association. “That’s the benefit of dual brand strategy, one can conveniently use the stronger brand and keep the weaker brand off the radar,” he says.
He points to current repositioning campaigns in China following the tainted milk scandal. “Both Mengniu and Yili are showcasing their larger ‘dairy’ expertise and credentials through yoghurt, ice cream and fresh milk, to downplay their ‘baby milk powder’ past.”
AIA is not the first to seek recovery through a rebrand. US telecoms WorldCom decided to rebrand as MCI in 2003 after a multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Sometimes a rebranding can pay off - the switch of Andersen Consulting to Accenture paid dividends when sibling accounting firm Arthur Andersen was implicated in the Enron scandal (though in this case the rebranding took place before the scandal).
Ian Thubron, executive vice-president TBWAAsia-Pacific, says that a brand cannot successfully detach from a disgraced parent company if the fundamental business remains the same. “AIA must be bold. It must signal a clear departure and change. It won’t change the perception of consumers if it’s business as usual.”
Briggs concludes: “This is not a time for pride to get in the way, nor is it the time to move without a firm plan. It is also a message that must penetrate the brand’s internal organisation. And it should come from the top of the company not through a mouthpiece for the top.”
Got a view?
Email [email protected]