Featured cases
- ABM Industries 2012
- AkzoNobel 2008
- Alcatel-Lucent 2006
- Alliance Boots 2006
- Apple 2007
- Aramark 1994
- ArcelorMittal 2007
- Assurant 2004
- Bausch & Lomb 2004
- BDO International 2010
- Belgacom 2003
- Boise Cascade 2002
- BP 2000
- Broadview Security 2009
- Brocade 2007
- CA 2005
- Cardinal Health 2003
- CEC Bank 2008
- Chemtura 2005
- Cisco Systems 2006
- Cision 2007
- Computer Associates 2001
- Covidien 2007
- Credit Suisse 2006
- CSC 2008
- Daimler 2007
- Delta Air Lines 2007
- Devon Energy 2007
- DSM 2011
- Eastman Kodak 2006
- EDF 2005
- Experian 2007
- Federal Express 1994
- FedEx Corporation 2000
- FICO 2009
- Fiserv Inc. 2009
- Fortis 1998
- Fortis 2006
- Fortis 1991
- Genworth 2004
- Gillette 1993
- Grant Thornton 2008
- Harcourt General 1993
- Harlan Laboratories 2008
- Hyperion 2006
- Ingersoll Rand 2005
- Intel 2006
- Invista 2003
- Johnson Controls 2007
- Kemper 2011
- Lineage Logistics 2012
- LM Wind Power 2010
- Lucent Technologies 1996
- Marathon Oil Corporation 2011
- Marsh & McLennan Companies 2011
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2003
- McGladrey 2010
- Meredith Corporation 2009
- MFS Investment Management 2012
- Morgan Stanley 2006
- Nielsen 2007
- Nokia Siemens Networks 2007
- Novartis 1997
- NXP Semiconductors 2006
- Outward Bound USA 2005
- Polycom 2012
- Princeton University Press 2007
- Reliance ADAG 2006
- Rockwell Collins 2006
- Samsung 1993
- Sensata Technologies 2006
- Shipley Energy 2011
- Sistema Telecom 2006
- Smith & Nephew 2003
- Sprint (Sprint Nextel) 2005
- Starbucks 2011
- Tenneco 1995
- Texenergo 2011
- The Joint Commission 2007
- The Paley Center for Media 2007
- The Phoenix Companies 2006
- Thomson Reuters 2008
- Tyco Electronics 2007
- Umicore 2001
- Unilever 2004
- Unum Group 2007
- Vale 2007
- Vantiv 2011
- Velfina 2004
- Wolters Kluwer 2005
- Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 2002
- Xerox 2008
Case: Chemtura 2005
It takes a strong leader to submerge two companies (Crompton Corporation, and Great Lakes Chemical) into something completely new... "Forget your past; we will join together to start anew." But that is the branding strategy chosen by Chairman, President and CEO Robert L. Wood, saying "We want to build a new house, not remodel two old ones." With a market cap of $3.3 billion, the combination could credibly seek the position of “the best specialty chemicals company in the world.” But this audacious goal would require both partners to transcend their previous identities. On July 1, 2005, when the merger (and the new name) took effect, Bob Wood put it clearly: “This is a transformational merger. We have been working intensely to create a new company with a new organizational design and new work processes. Our vision is to create the world’s best specialty chemicals company, not simply to add companies together.” The creation of an entirely new company requires a comprehensive identity platform, as well as a logo. Consultants from Siegel+Gale guided Wood’s team through the necessary process, helping to articulate the defining position, cultural values and image goal… and then, of course, resolving the name and design, whose objective was (quite literally) “to make a splash in our industry.” Siegel+Gale not only clarified corporate values -- they conducted a "values implementation" program, convening employees worldwide to identify concrete behaviors -- and how their job would have to change -- to align with the new brand and its culture, and provided new tools for HR management. Tony Spaeth CREDITS Siegel+Gale CASE INFO Submitted by: Tony Spaeth, 4/12/2006 |
MATRIX DATA
DRIVERS | TOOLS | ||
Structural driver: 75% | |||
Merger & Acquisition New vision, forget the past | 75% | x | Identifier tactics: Name change: Created words |
x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Change event : Medium visibility: Launch event | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||
Strategic driver: 25% | |||
Change internal culture Transfer affiliation from unit to parent | 15% | x | Identifier tactics: Name change: Created words |
x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||
Change perceived composition Redefine the defining units | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Name change: Created words |
x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||