JWT: Dumb-Ass Branding, or the Perils of Rewriting Corporate DNA

J. Walter Thompson has changed its name to JWT. Was it the right choice?

J. Walter Thompson has long been the iconic Madison Avenue agency. For years - no, decades - it has done advertising for Unilever, Ford and Pfizer, defining mass market advertising. The roots of the firm were established in 1864 as "Carlton & Smith," which specialized in buying and selling space in religious journals. In 1874 J. Walter Thompson bought the New York firm and renamed it after himself. No wonder "venerable" always seemed to precede the agency name.

Last year, Bob Jeffrey was named as CEO of J. Walter. He rightly recognized that the world of mass-market branding was dead. Audiences are either too jaded or too segmented for television -- J. Walter's long-time bread-and-butter. Direct mail is no more than landfill fodder and telemarketers have all the social cachet of child pornographers. Jeffrey understands that consumers now have the power to make or break brands. Success does not lie in how brands are "positioned," as the dinosaurs Trout and Ries continue to argue 30 years after their once-novel idea, but in how customers "participate" in the brand.

In Jeffrey's words: "Time is the new currency. Our job is to ensure that more people spend more time with our clients' brands. We need to create ideas that people want to spend more time with. The better the idea the more time people will spend with it."

As a result, Jeffrey is pushing, pulling and prodding the venerable firm into the digital age. He has brought in a new creative director. He has made the firm's digital expertise -- not its TV experience -- the basis of successful new pitches. Campaigns launch first on the Web with rich media, not on TV. It has employed interactivity effectively, such as the "Design Your Own Engagement Ring" on the Web for the diamond-giant De Beers. Women can customize their engagement ring, then email a not-so-subtle hint to the men in their lives. Such innovation has deep roots. In 1930, J. Walter Thompson supported the first TV show, sending the message for Libby's out to 44 TV sets nationwide.

Jeffrey argues that just as the corporate DNA has changed, so must the name. Frankly, I'm a bit cynical such proclamations. How many times have we heard agencies say, yes, now we truly get it, and then see only updated Mr. Whipple ads or cars zooming along the same stretch of desert or California highway? But even lip service by an advertising giant to the idea that brands can no longer "position" themselves to customers but instead must embark on interactive relationships is welcome news indeed.

So what does Jeffrey do to execute this new vision and send the message that old-time "positioning" and bloated TV budgets are dead and buried along with disco and polyester pants? He changes J. Walter Thompson's name to "JWT."

What message does "JWT" communicate? While J. Walter Thompson had an enviable, upper-class ring as it rolled smoothly off the tongue, JWT communicates nothing. JWT could mean a manufacturing firm, or a shipping company, or even a start-up tow-truck company. While the need for a name change to reflect the new direction is certainly debatable, surely the creative minds at the agency could have come up with something more definitive and defining than "JWT."

Ask yourself: You are a company looking to communicate verve, excitement, innovation and an ability to connect with customers. Would you hire a firm seeking to send the same message who renamed itself "JWT?"

Still, I wish Jeffrey all the luck in the world, and applaud his insight. He has gotten off on the wrong foot with a misbegotten name-change, but the race will be won by those that can execute best in the new customer economy. Here's hoping that he can teach the old J.Walter Thompson elephant not just to dance, but to swagger as well.

Comments

[George Parker]

Sorry this is a bit late, but I just came across your post on the renaming of J. Walter Thompson. I wrote about this on my blog Jan 29th. You might enjoy my comments. It reminds me of the time Xerox paid Landor and Associates $3 million to rebrand the company. They took the existing "Xerox - The Document Company" and changed it to "The Document Company - Xerox." It reminds me of the line in "Putney Swope" ...
"Well, if it cost that much, it must be good."
Now you know why the name of my blog is "AdScam."