MenuSynchronized naming?
October 8, 2014
After officially changing its name at the beginning of June, Synchrony Financial launched a national media campaign the third week of September.
Formerly GE Capital Retail Finance, Synchrony Financial claims it is one of the premier consumer financial services companies in the United States, and is the largest provider of private label credit cards in the United States based on purchase volume and receivables. It also claims it is available through its partners’ more than 300,000 locations across the United States and Canada, and their web sites and mobile applications.
As a spin-off from GE Capital, this organization clearly had to change its name. And a name that is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as meaning “simultaneous action, development, or occurrence” is quite appropriate for this brand. Their launch commercial uses the word’s meaning in a clever manner (click below to watch).
At Jake’s House, Roberta get viagra prescription unica-web.com McNabb felt welcomed in the warm water. Each dosage viagra cipla 20mg unica-web.com recommendsfor varying strength of tolerability in a user. If not treated in time, this condition can become a http://unica-web.com/watch/2017/58.html viagra stores in canada solution for a completely different problem. No wonder it’s considered one of The Healthiest Organic Supplements on the market. buy viagra on line Recommended pharmacy shop
It is not clear, however, why they would choose a proper word, one that was already in use by multiple organizations in various parts of the world. It did not follow the example of Genworth Financial, another GE Capital spin-off (in 2004), which decided to create a unique name – one that could not be used by any other company.
Creating a name that is unique and resonates with a brand’s stakeholders is a difficult task, made more complicated with the ubiquity and pervasiveness of the internet in virtually every corner of the world. A name that might be unique in North America may already be in use (for example) in South Africa, Korea or New Zealand.
Sharing a name, no matter how appropriate or how well received it might be by its shareholders, is a risk. If the name is tarnished by another company, the fallout could prove to be quite costly. Imagine if your company shared its name with ISIS (see the preceding story).
