No Longer On The Brink’s

We were obviously disappointed that we didn’t earn the right to lead the project, but we understand that Brink’s was beholden to their Stockholders – and as with the IBM of old, no one gets ousted for buying Landor.  Stokefire embraced risk and encouraged that Brink’s look to define a brand with real meaning and connection with the target audience.  As you will see here, Landor (the organization selected to lead the project) didn’t quite take that approach.Trying to put that aside, let’s see whether the name adds value with a quick check of the FAINTS analytics…

Fidelity: The name certainly moves away from the Brink’s brand (though we doubt the presence of “BR” at the start is a coincidence.)  The name implies having a wide field of vision, something that seems a decent fit for a security company.  The name doesn’t bash the reader over the head with the metaphor, but it’s at least available and accurate.  Slight benefit with a wink and a nudge at the former spelling.

Availability: There are all sorts of Broadviews – including some in the security space.  And others in technology security.  That said, this Broadview can outspend all the others combined, so this isn’t a big deal.  Marketing spend cannot, however, make up for the fact that the root domain – broadview.com – is owned by a consulting firm. Sure, Google will send people to the right address, but not everyone Googles when a URL seems obvious.

Intangibles: It’s somewhat poetic, no?  Has a sense of calmness to it.  Unassuming.  At least until you see the big blue camera/eyeball staring at you.  (Or am I misinterpreting the blue marks around “view”?)  If the company  executed on the potential here it’d be positive.  As it stands we’re about even.

Need: We’re assuming the name needed to show that this was still the same stable company they’ve always been, just with a new name.  Other than the fact that they still feel the need to tell people that they are indeed the same company it appears that this name satisfies.  It’s accessible, simple, and conservative… just like the current brand.

Tangibles: It seems to do just fine here.  Pretty easy to pronounce and understand.  No hidden meanings in English. Spelling is straightforward.  Just guessing again, but I’d say that this probably was a major factor in the selection of the name.

Strategy: Marketing depth is decent – the name evokes everything from wide plains to panning cameras.  It falls down a bit on connection.  There was real room to develop a meaningful relationship with the consumer here – and this one does not.  On risk it fails badly… This is a name that takes no risk whatsoever.  And differentiation is weak as well.  About 98 companies share the broadview name according to D&B, and Broadview Security Inc is listed as number 10 in relevancy when searching.  (Again, money can offset this, but the name lacks potential on its own.)

Overall the name adds a little bit of value to the brand, but not much.  If you factor in the weight, and the fact that the assumed need is rather short-sighted, this name may just be a placeholder.  Certainly the new organization is treating it as such, with no reference to what the name might mean in their messaging.  They could be using any name at all (other than Brink’s of course) and have the same look, feel, and messaging as they do now.

It isn’t that the brand is bad.  It isn’t.  The score using FAINTS isn’t high, but it’s not working against the organization. It’s just… well… not good.  I worry that it is borderline forgettable given the lack of anything tangible to lock onto.  No imagery, no active metaphors, no tie-in to areas of expertise.

In the end it appears that Landor has delivered another traditional Landor identity.  Low risk.  Impersonal.  Respectable.  One of our peers in the industry calls ‘em “Blandor” for this very reason.

For more analysis of the name check out these interesting articles by our peers.