By Ted Harvey, deputy head of capital markets

Abrdn’s decision to reinstate its missing vowel highlights a crucial aspect of corporate rebranding: timing. While the company’s U-turn was inevitable, its timing overshadowed positive business developments. This blog explores why timing is critical when reversing a branding change and how companies can better manage the communication in the press.

It took years of ridicule, allegations of ‘corporate bullying’, and a new CEO before ‘Abrdn’ decided enough was enough. The Edinburgh-based asset manager this week threw in the towel, reinstating a vowel it would’ve done better to leave alone in the first place.

Most readers close to the story – not least the company’s staff and shareholders – would agree this was likely to happen sooner or later. But the timing of its U-turn strikes us as strange, if not entirely misguided. It begs the question, is there an optimal time to execute a ‘re-rebrand’?

A strange vowel movement

Although Aberdeen’s now infamous 2021 rebrand was doubtless conceived with all the right  intentions, it is tough to pull off a name-change that seems to do little other than remove the letter ‘e’ – especially when vowel rhymes with bowel.

Overnight, the company made itself an easy target for savvy sub-editors. Memorable headlines featured phrases like ‘vowel movement’ and ‘disemvowelment’. And this wasn’t the only weakness in its rebranding strategy, as highlighted in our previous blog.

The rebrand ultimately weakened the brand’s equity. Prior to their £11bn merger in 2017, Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management were well-established names with considerable brand value. By moving away from these names, the company forfeited the instant recognition and trust they carried. Though it aimed to emulate the success of tech startups like Tumblr and Flickr, Abrdn failed to achieve the same resonance within the financial sector.

Like many poorly conceived rebrands, it seemed more like a distraction from the company’s deeper business challenges. And this is precisely why the timing of its ‘re-rebrand’ is odd. This time, the asset manager is distracting readers from positive news.

How to bury good news

Fans of Armando Iannucci’s award-winning political satire The Thick of It might recall an insight Malcolm Tucker, the foul-mouthed spin doctor, shared in season four: “You know what they say – ‘You can’t bury bad news.’ Well, good news is even harder to bury. You put a press release out saying, ‘Everything’s great,’ and every bastard wants to know why.”

Yet, it almost seems as though Aberdeen’s board tried to prove Mr Tucker wrong. By calling attention to the company’s disastrous rebrand via a U-turn, the press inevitably focused on this news and clouded over the company’s progress, which has been steady.

Under new chief executive Jason Windsor, investment management outflows fell sharply in 2024 and fund performance improved. Profits from the investment arm also rose 22% to £61m, despite a 9% fall in revenue to £797m. While the business is by no means out of the woods yet, positive press coverage garnered by its more encouraging results has mostly been suffocated by the latest episode in its rebranding saga. This press strategy would’ve had more than a few veins popping in Mr Tucker’s head.

The smarter play

In terms of when it is right to reverse course on a publicly decried company strategy, it is by no means a perfect science. There are certain advantages in promptly admitting defeat and reversing, as we saw with Post Office’s abandoned attempt to rebrand as Consignia. But given it has been several years since Aberdeen’s initial rebrand, the smarter play would have been to hold tight at least a little while longer.

Timing the change alongside a major strategic announcement, such as a new acquisition, leadership change, or product launch, would’ve been smarter yet. This would frame the change as part of a broader transformation, rather than an admission of past mistakes. This way, the company could have controlled the narrative and shifted focus away from the ridicule of ‘Abrdn’ towards a fresh, forward-looking message. And it would also have avoided burying the positive financial results under the re re-brand story, which is perfect fodder for headlines.

It is too late for Aberdeen to pay heed to this advice, but companies considering a reverse to part of their strategy would be wise to think carefully about timing and the reception in the media. Those that don’t risk making a name for themselves – and not in the way they were hoping.

Key takeaways:

• Q: Why did Abrdn revert to its original name?
• A: The company faced years of criticism for its 2021 rebrand, which weakened brand equity and became a distraction from its core business.
• Q: Why was the timing of Abrdn’s rebrand reversal problematic?
• A: The announcement overshadowed positive business developments, shifting media focus back to the contentious rebrand instead of financial growth.
• Q: When is the best time to fix a failed rebrand?
• A: Ideally, companies should align rebranding reversals with major strategic shifts, such as leadership changes, acquisitions, or product launches, to control the narrative.

About the author:

Ted Harvey is the deputy head of Capital Markets at Aspectus Group, where he helps shape the narrative for financial thought leaders and market influencers. Prior to joining Aspectus, he honed his expertise at Barret and Cook stockbrokers.