Shakespeare’s Juliet famously asks “What’s in a name?” Two recent agency name-change stories offer very different answers.
Most recently, Omnicom Public Relations revealed its post-acquisition structure, including the remarkably undercooked admission that the newly merged ‘Golin Ketchum’ would be called this “for lack of a better term today”.
This was hot on the heels of SPCSHP re-voweling to its original moniker of ‘Big Spaceship’ – an about-face featuring humble pie and a knowing nod: “After extensive A/B testing, we discovered people overwhelmingly prefer knowing how to pronounce your name.”
Both big decisions. Both high stakes for all involved. But the communication outcomes feel markedly different. While Omnicom PR feels tentative, Big Spaceship showed conviction, despite reversing a prior mistake.
So what can this contrast teach agencies about communicating change?
Communicating through complexity
In fairness, Omnicom’s context is undeniably vast. Its acquisition of Interpublic brings together major global brands, so alignment is a messy job across a bajillion markets.
This structural integration is also under public market scrutiny. In that environment, speed and sequencing aren’t easy. But at the same time, the stakes are even higher. Brand equity must be preserved, clients must be reassured and staff morale must be stabilised.
Perhaps sharing a name in apparent draft form was intended as transparency. But it feels more like hesitance. And this is particularly striking coming from a PR division – these are the experts in narrative management, especially in volatile times.
Throw in the fact that the markets aren’t exactly smiling on marketing services stocks right now – not even Publicis’ – and Omnicom’s phrasing is a missed opportunity to signal control and clear intent.
Owning the reset
Contrast all that with Big Spaceship’s return from planet ‘SPCSHP’. After a two-year voyage to a brave new consonant-only world, they adopted a self-deprecating tone, admitting their prior change “might not have been the best idea”. As new CEO Taryn Crouthers wryly confessed, “People just kept calling us Big Spaceship anyway.”
This levity worked because it was anchored in substance. Alongside their titular revival, Big Spaceship outlined operational changes, tech-enabled infrastructure and its new ‘Explore Pods’ sprint-based offering.
In other words, the cosmetic change was tied to capability evolution, so the humour signalled confidence, not flippancy. They didn’t just course-correct, they leveraged the opportunity.
Practical actions for agencies announcing change
Now, of course Big Spaceship is a far smaller shop, but it’s still part of a wider group in the shape of MSQ. And although MSQ isn’t listed like Omnicom, they’re private equity-backed, so it’s not like optics don’t matter. And regardless of size, all agencies have clients, staff, search consultants and indeed the trade press to keep onside.
So for any agency leaders navigating restructures, rebranding or merger announcements, three practical lessons emerge.
- Don’t announce in draft form – If your name’s not ready, then neither’s your announcement. And if circumstances force early communication, lead with your proposed criteria rather than a placeholder. Your stakeholders will prefer logic and direction over a vague sense of ‘this will do’.
- Communicate with conviction – Whatever the size of your agency, your clients, backers and employees value conviction. So hedging is not your friend. In times of change, clarity creates essential stability and confidence.
- Connect identity and commercial impact – Changing your name needs to be about substance over style. Explicitly connect your new identity to what clients care about. And to ensure the people that matter believe what you’re saying, demonstrate tangible differentiation in plain-English.
Stoking an unhelpful narrative
The gulf between these two announcements also feeds a familiar industry storyline: agile (kinda) indie versus unwieldy holding company.
While this narrative is easy to maintain right now, it remains unhelpful and overly binary. Indies are indeed having a moment. And the traditional HoldCo.s are – generally – having a trickier time. But amidst so much AI-led disruption, it’s a disservice to both sides – and to clients’ freedom of choice – to reduce the agency space to one vs the other.
Clearly holding companies can do much better than provisional language and smaller agencies aren’t immune to missteps. But in a highly competitive market, where genuine difference increasingly powers premium pricing, these announcements matter.
In Juliet’s world, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. In the agency world, that may also be true – but only if your underlying substance meets real-world client needs.
Robin Bonn is the CEO of agency positioning and business transformation specialists, Co:definery. He’s also the author of Market of One and host of The Immortal Life of Agencies podcast.
