Airbus rebranding turbulence

EADS, the holding company of Airbus, unveiled its new brand at the beginning of the year. Most significantly, they are changing their name to Airbus Group. They also announced that the other divisions are also changing their names: Cassidian, Astrium, and Airbus Military are integrating their operations to become Airbus Defence and Space, while Eurocopter will be known as Airbus Helicopters. The logos’ style has not changed dramatically. The chiseled typestyle that was introduced with the previous rebranding effort just over three years ago in September 2010 has been retained, along with the amateurish division symbols. The blue that was used only for division brand identities is now also used for the Airbus Group logo.

What to make of all of this? From a logo standpoint: not much. The lettering style was poorly done in 2010 when this brand was launched. Four years later it is still bad. On the other hand, changing the name of EADS to Airbus would appear to be a positive move. The Airbus name is well known around the world, whereas EADS was not. People will now instantly know what this company does. The reaction to the restructuring and renaming of the statellite and defence operations into one division using the Airbus name has been muted. On the other hand, the decision to rebrand Eurocopter to Airbus Helicopters has drawn criticism and appears to have its fair share of detractors. Is that negative reaction warranted?

It’s instructive to look at how their major helicopter competitors are branded. AgustaWestland, the Italian helicopter manufacturer, carries an endorsement line from Finmeccanica. Sikorsky, one of the best-known helicopter names, is branded as a subsidiary of United Technologies and Bell Helicopters is identified as a Textron company.

Its effect starts to get and maintain strong erection can be seen for 3 days (36 hours). best levitra prices Forzest has been a viagra online for women helpful medicinal treatment which has helped millions of people to restore their sexual life. This evidence has been found after testing on deeprootsmag.org buy tadalafil cheap animals. Tadalafil online viagra in australia suits the requirement of the health disorders which have been raised due to the parasynthetic nature of nervous system that helps in the dilation of the blood vessels which further helps in the smooth process of the erection.
Airbus had three clear options. They could have retained the Eurocopter name and replaced the EADS with Airbus in the endorsement line. They could have made Eurocopter a stand-alone brand, removing any reference to it being a subsidiary of Airbus Group. The third option is the one they carried out, to change the name to Airbus Helicopters. The middle option was definitely a non-starter, as their ultimate decision demonstrates.

So why was the first option discarded? Can one assume that this was done more for internal political reasons than any external focused decision-making? It is not difficult to imagine a scenario that had they decided to retain the Eurocopter name, the other divisions – which were amalgamated under the Airbus Defence and Space moniker – would have put up a fight, “If they keep their name, why not us?”

If this is in fact what happened, it would be a poor reason to change the name. The question in this case is does the Airbus name help or hurt the helicopter division? Is an airplane brand credible as a helicopter brand name? Does it help or hurt? Part of the argument might be that both are aircraft, so what’s the fuss? The Eurocopter name has only been around since 1992, so it does not have the storied past of Sikorsky, for example. On the other hand, the company claims that one third of the world’s civil and parapublic helicopter fleet are Eurocopter. The fact that this has been panned on blogs points to the lack of acceptance in the rotary wing industry. Many point out the differences between an airplane and a helicopter, comparing them to buses versus taxis.
From a long term corporate branding perspective, it may make sense to call the division Airbus Helicopters. However, for at least the short term, they should have decided to retain the Eurocopter name with the endorsement line “An Airbus Company.” Not because Airbus Group would have lent credibility to Eurocopter, but rather, this would have transferred the credibility and brand equity of Eurocopter to Airbus. After a few years of seeing both names together, the change to Airbus Helicopters might have been a non-event.
airbus-group.com