Image ,logo, corporate identity changes. As John Williams points out these are serious things with many pitfalls for the unwary and dividends for the exceptionally clever. A veritable minefield for the graphically enthusiastic but unwary. Nobody should get carried away by them without first defining their objectives and testing the ground very thoroughly. The aim has to be to achieve a thumbs up in a Coliseum style vote amongst constituent interests. Thumbs down and it's the lions. That's serious for any management. Ask Bob Ayling, former CEO of BA.
The latest to rush off merrily into this always beckoning but potentially nightmarish quicksand or cliff edge is the fledging (New") American Airlines with added US Air(except that managerially it's actually the other way round though that's not what the name says). Many staff are not happy. This is very common, especially amongst longer serving employees of historic legacy carriers who see see the company as "Ours" .This may surprise those who find their dedication to service and making the airline the best in the business less than stunning. Somewhere deep in their psyche lurks a deep sense of owning their airline. Long standing badges, totems and other rallying paraphenalia are extraordinarily significant. Incoming new managements, particularly if from outside, have enormous difficulties in understanding these cultural issues or how to deal with them without shutting down the business. Ruthless big bang or softly softly? Mass executions or bringing former and potentially dissident staff on board? Easyjet did it well,- positively, energetically and softly when they took over British Mediterreanean . Others have failed dismally.
In "New" American there will now be a belated staff vote. The spray guns have been at work for some time. Will the thumbs go up or down?
Apart from the above realities there is a generational thing. Managements will spend months and hundreds of millions of dollars with design consultants in genuine efforts to get things right only to have their new corporate identities and colour schemes greeted with derision. This is even more likely if there is little consultation or, as in the BA ethnic tails fiasco, a top down decision imposed with little discussion outside a small group of like minded or compliant people. If the small group is , as can happen in the design world, exclusively 20 or 30 years younger than a solid phalanx of older staff it is likely to become an age based decision which may not sell well to the veterans or the all important customers and other influencers of the company's destiny. The most/the best/the highest yield plus the media and political influencers and backers need to be on board with the new look. If the group of the decison makers is out of line with any of those or does not understand and accomodate their significance , then again the company is between a quicksand and a cliff top and the lions are roaring hopefully. A Prime Minister putting a handkerchief over a "New Look" is about near doom as you can get.
Shareholders are a third group of very interested people. Their verdict will come later when they can see the result of the money spent on the new look. If it doesn't bring in the dividends or the share value appreciation their thumbs will go down and the lions will lick their paws.
That's the picture.
Opinions on the value of new looks, images and identities are divided but fall broadly into two or three groups.
Lufthansa, Singapore and others have kept the same basic tails for 40 or more years while going for modest cleaning up of fuselage decoration. They don't seem to have suffered or lost a single £ or $ as result. Customers and staff continue to rally to the (totem) tail.
Others have changed significantly and more frequently. Landor have done some brilliant transformations and some equally clever modernising tweaks. Implimenting even the simplest costs millions so big paybacks are essential. Some of the less successful makeovers have been when there has been an insistence on using local rather than international consultants or designers. Companies operating in international markets need to cast their feedback and expertise nets wider than most close to home alternatives can manage. Other failures can come from not recognising that what may look good , modern and stylish at home may look dated or even amateur abroad.
The clever courses are therefore either :
1) Lufthansa and Singapore style to leave a good formula and branding more or less well alone other than freshening up and subtly modernising it. Even a change of type face may do the trick.
or
2) As per BA with the Landor Speedwing design on privatisation, to use a total new identity to demonstrate a totally reborn company, carrying with it the support and enthusiasm of as many as possible of the stakeholders in sweeping aside the old and replacing it all with a new bold and exciting. To secure support a number of previously important features-eg blue lower hulls,- can be part of the deal. In the previous post BOAC/BEA Merger Negus and Negus design there was such a tribal uproar about the elimination of the historic BOAC Speedbird symbol that it had to be stuck back on, a little incongrously, ahead of the company titles on the roof. The BEA tribe was less impressed but over ruled. The Landor transformation was greeted with a real morale boosting "Wow" when the box was opened and the first aircraft rolled into view.
Big Bangs can only be done once in a generation. Good candidates now include Kuwait Airways, Air Tanzania, and Air China. Air Botswana turned down a new partnership with SA Express because the partner insisted on it adopting a look similar to theirs. Never mind the business need for a dramatic transformation. Political pride came first. It has cost and will go on doing so.
It will be interesting to see how American's staff vote and whether the thumbs go up or down. The telling factor though will be whether anyone is under any illusion that a transformation can really occur without a surge of staff enthusiasm and change of legacy airline culture so that the customers start to feel that they are valued and genuinely getting their moneysworth. If they don't, the paint job will just come over as a cynical waste of money.
The latest to rush off merrily into this always beckoning but potentially nightmarish quicksand or cliff edge is the fledging (New") American Airlines with added US Air(except that managerially it's actually the other way round though that's not what the name says). Many staff are not happy. This is very common, especially amongst longer serving employees of historic legacy carriers who see see the company as "Ours" .This may surprise those who find their dedication to service and making the airline the best in the business less than stunning. Somewhere deep in their psyche lurks a deep sense of owning their airline. Long standing badges, totems and other rallying paraphenalia are extraordinarily significant. Incoming new managements, particularly if from outside, have enormous difficulties in understanding these cultural issues or how to deal with them without shutting down the business. Ruthless big bang or softly softly? Mass executions or bringing former and potentially dissident staff on board? Easyjet did it well,- positively, energetically and softly when they took over British Mediterreanean . Others have failed dismally.
In "New" American there will now be a belated staff vote. The spray guns have been at work for some time. Will the thumbs go up or down?
Apart from the above realities there is a generational thing. Managements will spend months and hundreds of millions of dollars with design consultants in genuine efforts to get things right only to have their new corporate identities and colour schemes greeted with derision. This is even more likely if there is little consultation or, as in the BA ethnic tails fiasco, a top down decision imposed with little discussion outside a small group of like minded or compliant people. If the small group is , as can happen in the design world, exclusively 20 or 30 years younger than a solid phalanx of older staff it is likely to become an age based decision which may not sell well to the veterans or the all important customers and other influencers of the company's destiny. The most/the best/the highest yield plus the media and political influencers and backers need to be on board with the new look. If the group of the decison makers is out of line with any of those or does not understand and accomodate their significance , then again the company is between a quicksand and a cliff top and the lions are roaring hopefully. A Prime Minister putting a handkerchief over a "New Look" is about near doom as you can get.
Shareholders are a third group of very interested people. Their verdict will come later when they can see the result of the money spent on the new look. If it doesn't bring in the dividends or the share value appreciation their thumbs will go down and the lions will lick their paws.
That's the picture.
Opinions on the value of new looks, images and identities are divided but fall broadly into two or three groups.
Lufthansa, Singapore and others have kept the same basic tails for 40 or more years while going for modest cleaning up of fuselage decoration. They don't seem to have suffered or lost a single £ or $ as result. Customers and staff continue to rally to the (totem) tail.
Others have changed significantly and more frequently. Landor have done some brilliant transformations and some equally clever modernising tweaks. Implimenting even the simplest costs millions so big paybacks are essential. Some of the less successful makeovers have been when there has been an insistence on using local rather than international consultants or designers. Companies operating in international markets need to cast their feedback and expertise nets wider than most close to home alternatives can manage. Other failures can come from not recognising that what may look good , modern and stylish at home may look dated or even amateur abroad.
The clever courses are therefore either :
1) Lufthansa and Singapore style to leave a good formula and branding more or less well alone other than freshening up and subtly modernising it. Even a change of type face may do the trick.
or
2) As per BA with the Landor Speedwing design on privatisation, to use a total new identity to demonstrate a totally reborn company, carrying with it the support and enthusiasm of as many as possible of the stakeholders in sweeping aside the old and replacing it all with a new bold and exciting. To secure support a number of previously important features-eg blue lower hulls,- can be part of the deal. In the previous post BOAC/BEA Merger Negus and Negus design there was such a tribal uproar about the elimination of the historic BOAC Speedbird symbol that it had to be stuck back on, a little incongrously, ahead of the company titles on the roof. The BEA tribe was less impressed but over ruled. The Landor transformation was greeted with a real morale boosting "Wow" when the box was opened and the first aircraft rolled into view.
Big Bangs can only be done once in a generation. Good candidates now include Kuwait Airways, Air Tanzania, and Air China. Air Botswana turned down a new partnership with SA Express because the partner insisted on it adopting a look similar to theirs. Never mind the business need for a dramatic transformation. Political pride came first. It has cost and will go on doing so.
It will be interesting to see how American's staff vote and whether the thumbs go up or down. The telling factor though will be whether anyone is under any illusion that a transformation can really occur without a surge of staff enthusiasm and change of legacy airline culture so that the customers start to feel that they are valued and genuinely getting their moneysworth. If they don't, the paint job will just come over as a cynical waste of money.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.