Over the last three years, AIG has served as the classic story of a rebranding effort brought about by crisis. When the major insurer was bailed out with TARP funds from the U.S. government, the company faced serious public backlash. To distance itself from that negative image, AIG quietly renamed its property & casualty insurance branch, calling it Chartis. For the next three years, Chartis began to brand itself as its own entity. But over the past couple of months, you may have noticed a new story emerging: AIG is back, and it has a new message for the American people:
This commercial is a proud “Thank You” to the American people for the TARP bailout funds. It informs us that not only has AIG repaid that money, but they’ve included a multi-billion-dollar profit. The overarching message is that AIG has persevered over its troubled past and is ready to contribute to society.
The rebranding back to AIG doesn’t replicate the old company –- it is a complete reboot of the old AIG image. The new brand message, “Bring on tomorrow” is accompanied by a much more modern look and feel, a new logo with a bright blue sans-serif font, and a dynamic website. Why the confident backpedal to AIG’s original name? According to the CEO, the name –- and the optimistic new positioning –- announces the repayment of TARP funds and represents “a significant achievement for our company.”
Prior to the Chartis rebrand, AIG had a long history and strong brand equity associated with it. By reclaiming the original name, AIG also hopes to reclaim that equity and build a refreshed, stronger brand on top of it. The primary message through all these visual and verbal communications is easy to see: AIG is back from the dead, but it’s different. Almost as though it has a new lease on life.
Ironically, the AIG Board of Directors met on Jan. 9th to discuss whether or not to participate in a lawsuit against the U.S. government in regards to the TARP funds they have repaid. Although they chose not to join that lawsuit, the company already was beginning to see some public anger around the issue which would have made their “Bring on tomorrow” tagline seem a lot more aggressive.
Was the move back to AIG a good choice or should they have stuck with Chartis? Please share your thoughts.
How much brand value does Enron have? How much would you pay to use the Enron name?
Ron Strauss on 01.11.13 at 3:51 amBrand value can be viewed as a reservoir of value not yet released to the P&L. That is, if it’s positive. Brand value also provides resilience to a brand when things go wrong. AIG used up any brand equity it may have had among the public during the financial crisis.
The change to Chartis was a good move, indicating a new attitude, new values, a new beginning.
The change back to AIG, accompanied by the board’s deliberation over whether to participate in a lawsuit against the U.S. government indicates an old attitude, old values and is an unmitigated disaster.
I think if AIG had joined the lawsuit, it would have destroyed any good will they have. I suspect AIG could move to limit the law suit as well, but I have not seen that.
Andrew Yamamoto on 01.13.13 at 6:56 pmRon: I agree that reviving a brand with negative perceptions can be a poor choice. I’m not privy to the management conversations at AIG, but my guess would be that – IF they did their due diligence – they found either: Chartis was not catching on as they’d hoped, or AIG had enough positive equity that it was worth reviving. Either way, I’m really interested to see if their gamble will pay off!
Andrew: I agree about the lawsuit. After reading into it, it seems like the lawsuit was the suggestion of a lone shareholder, and the board vetoed that idea immediately. Regardless, that lawsuit made headlines and has already had a negative effect on the AIG brand.
Ron and Andrew, Thank you for the comments!
Kristy Gulsvig on 01.14.13 at 5:41 pm