Hello Tate,
I’ve been enjoying reading your posts regarding Optiva. You raise some good points, and hopefully I can help shed some light and clear up the confusion.
First, there were two primary reasons for the name change. First, as you’ve pointed out from reading our releases, there is a misconception in our community that you need to be somehow connected to the University to join. Focus groups (and other research) have made this abundantly clear. Of course, efforts have been made to educate non-members, but it continues to be a hurdle.
The second reason was that the University had strong feelings about controlling their own brand message. As you well know, many credit unions eventually shed the name of their original sponsor. The UICCU and the University both felt it was time to control their own message. That makes sense to me. That being said, there is no ill will between the two. In fact, the Credit Union will be opening a branch on campus (a first in our history) and will partner with the U to help develop their Student ID program.
But allow me to share some more facts:
1) 45,000 members were invited to the initial vote. Less than 400 were passionate enough about the issue (or had the time on that Wednesday night) to show up. When it is said that “thousands of members” are opposed, I’d challenge that statement. I think 95% don’t really care. They may not love the name Optiva yet, but we have not given them any reason to yet. That flag hasn’t even been raised yet. As long as the service remains high, fees low, rates great, and no account numbers change, they are generally pleased with their credit union.

2) Credit Union State Law requires us to convene a Special Meeting if a petition of over 100 people is signed. The petitioners, using the false claim that we are “converting to a bank” gathered 143 signatures (yep, we had folks listen to what the petitioners were saying, and even had some signers call apologizing after they learned the truth about how they were misled). That 143 is .3% of the membership. To the best of my knowledge, I see the same 12 or so people writing letters to the Editor. I’m perfectly OK with members being passionate about the credit union. I get a little upset when they are lied to though.

3) The name “Optiva” was selected to reflect a progressive institution. For reasons I think your marketing forum understands, we didn’t want to limit ourselves to a geographic name, because we would be facing another name change when we outgrew it. We also didn’t want to be one of the dozens of financial institutions in the area with “Iowa”, “First”, “State” or “Community” in the name.

4) The vocal opposition repeatedly say that this will kill the credit union. Fact is, since announcing the new name 6 months ago…we’ve grown over $30 million in deposits and $30 million in loans. That double digit (record) growth certainly outpaces our competition. Actually, most of them combined don’t hit those numbers. Even better, we are adding more members than ever.

5) The opposition claims that the vote was illegal. I was there. It wasn’t. In fact, the Credit Union Division has looked into it too and they too have not found it to be an illegal vote. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I thought this whole thing was based on a stuffed ballot box.
Well, I’m probably spouting on longer than I should. I just wanted to chime in and mention that I do appreciate the civil discussion on your site. Remember, the “brand” goes beyond the name or the colors and pictures I choose for our ads. Our brand is an experience, and with the 150 or so staff we have serving the members, I’m pretty confident that Optiva will make it past the rough birthing process.
All-in-all...you're right, changing a name is hard. But I just saw my wife give birth to our daughter last month. That looked harder.Have a great day!

Tate,
I figured I'd get this party started. I was approached by a credit union last year that was thinking about a name change for the same reason.
The more I learned about the company the more I convinced them NOT to change the name. People were willing to LIE to get into this credit union. That's how good they are. They had members making up stories about relatives that worked at the plant because they wanted to join. They even had to implement an affidavit to verify membership.
That problem was easily solved by expanding the field of membership to the entire county. (which they did) BUT they do not heavily advertise that fact because they want to keep the exclusivity -- actually protect their brand name.
They had the best problem possible -- members clamoring to get in. I find that a lot of credit unions DON'T have that problem. They say they are not growing because of confusion with the name -- are they turning members away? If they're not, the problem is much bigger.
Name changes and pretty new logos don't solve that -- they just become frosting on the pig.

Glad to have you on board Jim.
Great to see the University pushed to protect its brand. That's something I'd not read in a public forum before.
I'm thinkin' that perhaps the craziness going on now might have been caused by the University's perceived lack of candor. Had this rebrand been announced as an initiative of UofI the alumni revolt might not have been an issue. After all, moving against the name change would be moving against the University. It might also have headed off the claims of voter fraud and secretly trying to become a bank. Throw in global warming and the right wing conspiracy and we might get world peace...
It seems to me that the imaginative claims being made came from a member base that didn't believe the story being told and tried to create more believable causes. Because the audience is strongly pro-university they didn't consider that the change could come from the source they trusted implicitly.
Ockham's razor comes to the rescue!
This is the reason I was looking for. The name changed because the University wanted to protect its brand. It is a good reason, it is justified, and it doesn't give the CU much choice other than to rebrand. (Sure, they could fight it, but the damage to both brands would be considerable if it was fought in the courts.)
I hope that other CUs that share the name of a larger organization take note of what happened here. Trying to change the name of a CU without disclosing the real reason for the change can cause some major headaches. (Though at least they come with some free press...)
I'll touch on the Focus Group comment from your post in my post today.
Congrats on the baby girl! My wife is due in June - and if I thought I was qualified or permitted to make a comparison between her upcoming delivery and a corporate name change I would attempt to do so here.

Denise -
Thanks for the story.
I think that confusion might be a reason to change a name if there is little brand equity in the existing name. If it is actively hurting business then I'd consider it.
Not sure I'd go so far as to call rebranding "frosting on the pig." I do agree that a company doing poorly likely wouldn't be helped by *only* changing the name and logo. It takes a true rebranding - refocusing the values, personality, and feel of the organization - to create an environment for a turnaround.
In my humble opinion you can't achieve success in the face of failure by saying the same things more loudly. Something has to change other than volume. (If this weren't the case then two year olds would rule the world.)
Hmmm... I think I know some parents who think two year olds *do* rule the world...

Tate,
I hope all credit unions do not shed their brand names. The names of the people that started them. That's one of the few things that makes us unique.
If the University of Iowa wanted to protect their brand FROM the financial institution they started, it was because the credit union no longer served just the University's interests.
Before all credit unions go community charter I think we need to take a long hard look at what we're giving up.
Now Optiva becomes another financial institution in an already overbanked world.

I think we're on the same page when it comes to mass renaming, Denise. Having all CUs shed their brand names would be a disaster. I was suggesting that a name change is perhaps the right thing to do when the 'parent brand' (I'm really not sure what to call them) says they want the name back.
Where we may differ is in what the parent brand uses as justification.
There are two things that factor in for me here. First, most savvy brands are starting to realize that specialization trumps generalization. For some parent brands this may mean shedding the parts of their companies that they aren't experts in. Most of the companies and organizations with CUs don't specialize in finance - and don't benefit from the implication that they're offering financial services as part of their service package. In this case it doesn't matter whether or not the service is serving their audience.
The second issue is one of control. A CU is strongly influenced by members and its board - and even if these groups are comprised of employees of the parent brand they may wish to take the CU in a different direction or one that doesn't mesh well with the parent brand's image. Additionally, any legal issues faced by the CU can negatively affect the parent even though there's no true connection.
If there's a third issue I suppose it would be confusion. In addition to the confusion about whether or not a CU only serves the named group, there's confusion about whether the CU is *part* of the company it is named for. In most cases it isn't. That's a difficult thing for many parent brands to accept - that they're being seen as providing a service that has very little to do with them.
If we take a step back from CUs specifically and look more generally at industry it may make more sense. Suppose that in addition to a CU the University of Iowa also lent its name to a used car sales unit. Then lets add in chains of beauty salons, mortuaries, and eldercare. Wouldn't these services dilute the brand of the university? Wouldn't they also increase risk, as the university would be associated with any difficulties at the various entities?
To the university it may be more wise to partner with leading institutions that specialize and perhaps even recommend service providers or offer a "University Approved" rating rather than lending its own identity to an unrelated entity.
I would love to have Stokefire offer financial services to my employees, but I won't create a new branch of Stokefire to do it... Instead I'll find a bank or CU that fits with our philosophies and create a partnership...
...I think I'm talking in circles.
I do see your point Denise. There's a difference between 'going community charter' and rebranding. Going community charter may be something that makes the parent brand realize that they're not being well served by the CU. But in my opinion this doesn't prevent the parent from demanding that the CU rebrand if they stay with the original charter- it just makes it less likely that they will do so.
And now... I'm off to get coffee.

Tate,
I love your analogy about the Univeristy of Iowa "lending" their name to a beauty salon. It doesn't make any sense.
I was not able to find the history of the credit union anywhere on the web (kind of sad) but I would bet money that U of I did not lend their name. The U of I started the credit union. That's hard to do. Most likely professors and/or administrators pooled their resources some 70 years ago to begin the financial cooperative for their employees. As credit unions grew, they branched out (literally and now figuratively) to serve others.
You COULD start a Thingnamer Credit Union for your employees. But you're right, today it would be far easier to just sign up for an existing one. BUT, imagine if you did? You would have your own savings and lending club. You would know all of your members intimately. You would probably have zero percent delinquency because in a financial cooperative you are literally borrowing the money of your co-workers (just in a less awkward way).
Then let's say you expanded it to family members. And your company makes the FORTUNE 500 list and grows crazy fast and pretty soon you have to open a real branch for your credit union. You have a volunteer board (a mix of Thingnamer employees and family) who make all the decisions for the organization.
Fast forward 50 years -- and that group has gone off on their own and decided to serve everyone on the East Coast!! Now the brand is no longer just Thingnamer folk. But your name's still on it. That's when credit unions LOSE their brand. They made decisions along the way that (in many cases) were based on greed and growth and not what was in the best interests of the members.
side note: I know, I know...lots of credit unions had no choice. They had to go community because the sponsor went away. I get that.
But I'm talking about the University of Iowa. They did have a choice. And they chose to go community. So they choose to give up the name. They will have fall-out. It's a University for god's sake. Alma Mater. 70 years of alumni. Now proudly wearing the OPTIVA name?
I would proudly wear a Thingnamer shirt...btw.

D.

Woohoo! First order for a Thingnamer shirt! Now I gotta go make one.
Wish I knew more about the decisions U of I made regarding charter and whether or not the University really forced the name change - or if the University forced the name change *because* the charter had changed. Not sure we'll get a definitive answer... I've heard conflicting information from just about everyone - though the only insider I know of (Jim Kelly - see what is probably his comment at the start of this thread) seems to indicate the University pushed for it.
I'll be floored if the University comes out and states it as fact, however.

I guess everyone will know how the University of Iowa *really* feels if the the new name is rejected in this second vote...

I'm thinkin' the second vote will be less representative than the first given the large one-sided push. Advocates for the new name are likely not very interested in pushing their interests as it may be seen as speaking out against an already agitated membership and against the interests of the University as well.
Tough position.

Truthfully, who cares enough to vote TWICE?
There's only two kinds of people who will show up Tuesday night for this second vote:
1) People who hate the new name

2) People who hate losing the old name
Everyone else (meaning, the rational folks in Iowa who want to get on with their lives) don't care enough to go vote again. Even if they can't stand the anti-Optiva movement and their tactics.

I'm one of the over a thousand who came out to vote. One reason I did is that the first vote was so badly advertised that I hardly knew about it in advance - another was that I was unable to vote the first time.
Part of the resistance comes from the idiocy of the name, "Optiva." What does such a company do? No idea! My suggestion of their product was a Korean sub-compact or a Finnish toothpaste, but I like someone else's that it is a drug for "erectile dysfunction."
If the University is holding a gun to the credit union's head the members would find a change more understandable. It would not be the first time that the University has acted like a 600 pound gorilla but tried to seem uninvolved in something in the community.

Thanks for stopping in, Alice.
I've often stated I'm not a big fan of Optiva (though I can't say I find it idiotic.) In fairness to OptivEx it isn't always necessary to explain what you do with your name. We seem to having given Google a pass - even though 99% of the people who use the name think it is gibberish...
I'm also of the belief that the university *did* hold a loaded gun and forced the change. It's the only thing that makes sense... I'd love to hear about the other instances you hint at in your comment.

From: Jeff Cox
I am getting a little tired of hearing credit union employees asssert that petitioners lied in order to get signatures. I drafted the petition for a new meeting, and circulated it. When I went around to get signatures, I asked one question only: do you want a new vote on the name Optiva? We only get 143 signatures largely because it was hovering around zero on the weekend that we circulated the petition. With good weather, we could have gotten 1000 signatures easily. No one liked the name Optiva except some credit union employees, and many of them don't like it either, although they can't say so even now.
There was a second petition submitted by someone else, full of wild speculation, but it only had twelve signatures, and the author was lucky to get those. It was entirely irrelevant to the member meeting.
The Credit Union conducted a very extensive and expensive get out the vote campaign in order to maximize the pro-Optiva votes. I received two phone calls myself, which shows that they were turning out opponents as well as supporters. The anti-Optiva campaign had no money, and no get out the vote campaign, other than informally asking friends to turn out. I suspect that the 600 or so pro-Optiva votes at the meeting roughly equals the number of vote Optiva would have received in a mail ballot, which would have been an anti-Optiva landslide.
As for the illegality of the first vote, the reasons for asserting its illegality were taken directly from the letter from the state Credit Union Division explaining that they were not going to intervene in the decision. Mr. James Forney, state director of the bureau, also explained in the letter that there was a possibility that the election was illegal under the Iowa Code, in that members contrary to law were allowed to vote early and leave on Oct. 4. He also explained the remedy: a petition for a new membership meeting. That's what we did, to the overwhelming approval of credit union members who are not employees.
Jeff Cox

Mr. Cox,
Please explain this excerpt from an article in the Daily Iowan entitled, "Credit Union's Name Change Still Drawing Fire," from November 2, 2006:
"Jeffrey Cox - a credit-union member and UI history professor - said that WHEN HE VOTED BEFORE THEN END OF THE MEETING, the envelopes were already filled with ballots, showing that members had already voted. This, he said, contradicts mailed information instructing members to vote at the meeting."
I added the ALL-CAPS emphasis. Sorry, I don't know how to link:

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2006/11/02/Metro/Credit.Unions.Name.Change.Still.Drawing.Fire-2433894.shtml?norewrite200611090907&sourcedomain=www.dailyiowan.com
Mr. Cox, there's an apparent hypocrisy in your story. Exactly what time did you vote? (To be clear: At the first vote, on October 4, 2006)? Did you vote before the meeting, which might explain why you saw other ballots that, as you claim, shouldn't have been in there? Maybe your mind was made up and you just felt like voting and going home? Did you just spend the last four months complaining about a voting practice that you yourself participated in?
And regarding the petition, Laurie Baumgartner, was at least one member who was told about untrue plans about a bank conversion. She has a comment somewhere over at the Press-Citizen website (I have a screen shot, but can't find the link).
Whether this falsehood was printed on a petition (which you acknowledge) or shared verbally, it seems irrelevant. In either case, the tactics used by many members to get their way in this issue lacked integrity, and the outcome of the second vote does not absolve those actions.
You hated the name.

You lost.

You still hated the name.

Then you won.
Why now do you feel the need to circle back and sanctify your victory?

1. I am not trying to sanctify our victory, but refute the accusation of Bruce Kelly, marketing director of the UICCU, that "the petitioners" (see above on this thread) lied in order to get signatures. Accusing someone of lying is a serious accusation, as is your accusation that I "lack integrity", something I have never said about the Credit Union board or administration.
2. As I said in my post, the petition said nothing about conversion to a bank. Read it if you don't believe me. I drafted the petition, and it contained only a request for a new meeting, based on voting irregularities at the first meeting, to reconsider the name change. That is what I told potential signers it was about, and that is what those who received copies of the petition were told to explain to potential signers, i.e. this is about a new meeting for a name change.
3. There was a second petition, circulated by another group, and ultimately signed by only 12 people, which did in fact assert that the credit union had plans to become a bank. I had nothing to do with that petition, largely because I do not believe the assertions that it contained. That petition had nothing to do with the meeting to reconsider the name change.
4. The Oct. 4 meeting began at six, which is when all members were told that they had to be present in order to vote. I left the meeting early and voted as I left, which is entirely legal under the Iowa Code (otherwise known as "the law") which states that members must be "present at the meeting" in order to vote. It does not say they have to be present until the end of the meeting.
5. I was one of the first to leave, and when I left I noticed that the ballot envelope was literally bulging (perhaps "stuffed" is the right word) with ballots. When I asked the representatives of McGladrey and Pullen, the accounting firm responsible for the integrity of the ballot, why the ballot envelope was full even though hardly anyone had left the meeting, they told me that a number of people had come at 5:30 "with the people from the bank" (those are their words), voted, and left before the meeting began. Those voters were not "present at the meeting". The Credit Union administration has never denied that they told some people they could vote early
6. I think this was a mistake on the part of the Credit Union administration which might have affected the outcome. That is the basis for our assertion on the petition that the first vote was illegal, in that ballots were cast by those who were not "present at the meeting", the words taken from the Iowa Code defining who is eligible.

Hello everyone.
Just wanted to take a moment and ensure that we're keeping this focused on the issues pertaining to the name and the naming process. I don't know that we've crossed into personal attacks, but if we haven't we're awfully close.
This is a moderated comments board. I'll adjust or edit comments as necessary to keep things civil.
I'm of the opinion that there isn't much to speak of on the Optiva name until the University lets us know whether or not the CU can have the old name back. If anyone wants to analyze the steps leading up to the revote I'd welcome that - as long as we don't attribute any motives or actions to people other than ourselves (unless quoted in the press.)
Thanks folks!

From the February 7th Iowa Press-Citizen article entitled "Petition Against Optiva Delivered":
"The petition states that the election was unfair and the current name should be kept, said Tim Taffe, a credit union member opposed to the change. [b]The petition also asks for the credit union to end its bank conversion program.[/b]"
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070207/NEWS01/702070306/1079

Tim Taffe was (I assume) referring to the petition that he drafted, circulated, and submitted to Steve Quigley, retail marketing director of the UICCU. It had twelve signatures. It was not the petition that I drafted, circulated, and submitted to Steve Quigley, which had 143 valid signatures, and triggered the membership election, since it had the number of signatures required. Mr. Quigley will be able to confirm those facts, if asked, I am sure.
If Mr. Taffe in fact told people that the petition he was circulating was about the conversion of the credit union into a bank, he was not lying about the petition, which did in fact assert such a thing.
For the record, and once again, there were two petitions, one of them circulated only by Tim Taffe. That one was irrelevant to the decision by the board to call a membership meeting. The one that I drafted and circulated had nothing about conversion to a bank, or anything in it other than a call for a new membership meeting.
Jeff Cox