It takes many years to embed a name in the public consciousness so any change is fraught with risk. The Royal Mail got their fingers horribly burnt with the anonymous 'Consignia'. And nothing was quite as funny as PwC's attempt to rebrand its consultancy arm 'Monday'.
It must be tempting for GM to drop 'Vauxhall', but they haven't. Brylcreem has been around since 1928 yet the brand owners have not yet opted for something more 'hip'. Club 18-30 is still called that, while successfully shedding the Beaver Espana image. Mars' Marathon globalised as 'Snickers' amidst playground sniggers, although for its energy bar, Mars has re-introduced the Marathon name. Coco Pops returned after a short, sad life as Choco Krispies.
There are success stories. UKTV G2 is happier as Dave. Not too many people mind that Jif is now Cif. And Midland Bank is in a better place as HSBC.
Name changes are fraught with risk. I can understand how it appeals massively to the corporate ego ("we control and direct this brand") and the dynamics of global marketing, but consumers should have a say, too. Lucozade was once a much-loved tonic for convalescence. It's still around but is now loved as a sports performance aid.
Are Absolute and Aviva sufficiently distinctive? Are they deeply meaningful or utterly empty? Do they make customers more or less likely to turn to them? Mmmm.
What do you think?