In a couple of days, AOL will separate from Time Warner and become “Aol.” So America Online, which became AOL, will now become Aol. In making the name change, AOL appears to be seeking to strike a balance between acknowledging the past and signaling new things to come. The question is, does the new logo send the right signals, or might it further undermine a fading star?

The new AOL logo (white lowercase lettering and the period) will appear in conjunction with a wide variety of background images that are intended to reflect the breadth of AOL’s  content. And, according to Sam Wilson, managing director at the New York office of Wolff Olins, who is quoted in this New York Times article by Stuart Elliott, the period is supposed to add a sense of “confidence” and “completeness” to the name.

Given AOL’s plummeting revenue and the loss of 438,000 subscribers during the third quarter of this year (click here for article), it is obvious why Time Warner wants out of AOL, but it is far less obvious what the supposed name change is going to achieve. One thing is for sure—it is going to take a lot more than a name change and a bunch of disparate images to return the brand to its former status as an Internet pioneer.

Ever since I first learnt that the long-suffering Internet brand was to undergo another reincarnation, I have been wondering what might actually allow AOL to become successful once again. AOL was once a true trendsetter. It may be hard to remember now, but the online world was a daunting place back in the 1990s, and AOL made accessing the Web safe and easy for hesitant, apprehensive newbies. But like many once successful brands, AOL has become sidelined as the Internet and people’s use of it continues to evolve.

I think that AOL’s fundamental problem today is that it no longer stands for anything. People have either forgotten about it or are just not familiar with what it has to offer. A quick look at our U.S. BrandZ data confirms this perception. AOL is measured in the context of Internet portals (where today Google is pre-eminent), and since 2001, most of its key brand equity metrics have declined. Bonding, for example, declined from 11 percent to less than 2 percent. (Bonding for Yahoo! also declined sharply, but still exceeds 10 percent.) The AOL name is reasonably well known, but it is not famous any longer, and about a third of people say they would not consider using the site.

AOL is certainly not seen as a trendsetter these days, not even by the people that hold it in high regard. It needs to recover some of its once distinctive status. So the fundamental question is, what can AOL offer that others do not? Can it carve out a role in the online ecosystem that is not already filled by other brands?

Right now, given the wide variety of images to be used in conjunction with its new name, AOL is trying to focus on the variety of content it offers as a point of differentiation. And while the images do reflect the breadth of what AOL has to offer (e.g., 80 sites covering diverse subjects), I am concerned that the use of a disparate set of images in conjunction with the “new” name will undermine the brand’s clarity still further. What does a goldfish have to do with sneaker-clad skateboarding feet? The lack of a single iconic image will mean that everyone is able to place their own interpretation on what the AOL brand stands for. That’s not a bad thing on its own but, as Faris Yakob suggests, without a shared understanding of what it stands for, a brand loses much of its intrinsic power. (See this post for more discussion or Faris’s original post  here.)

The Web abounds with interesting and unusual images. It also abounds with interesting and varied content. If AOL (or Aol.) is to succeed, its management needs to dig deep and find something else that makes it relevant once again. Is there something they can do to leverage the brand’s origins? Should they focus on an older crowd, for whom their residual equity still presumably exists? Or, to avoid getting boxed in as a brand for older people, can they reinvent the offer in order to appeal to the younger crowd? Though CEO Tim Armstrong has promised to “spark a revolution” by automated story selection (click here for article), I don’t think that is going to be the panacea to the brand’s problems.

I do hope for all concerned that the period at the end of the new name simply represents the end of a chapter in the story of American Online/AOL/Aol. I’d hate to think that it could be the end of the story.

So what would you do if you were in charge at AOL? What content could they offer that would make the brand relevant again? Should they change the name completely? Please share your thoughts.

 Email This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm and is filed under Brands, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page