Risky Business: Organisations who ‘changed face’ in an attempt to distance themselves from catastrophe, ill feeling, bad association or a tarnished reputation.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Not forgetting, the world’s worst industrial catastrophe in 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Killing plant staff and thousands of people in surrounding residential areas, UCIL subsequently renamed, and became Eveready Industries India Ltd. (EIIL) — adopting the Eveready ‘Nine Lives’ identity.
ENRON
Arthur Andersen, the once ‘Big Five’ accountancy firm, was directly linked to the ENRON scandal. In 2001, when legally forced to change its name, spin-off business Andersen Consulting rebranded to become Accenture.
The Government Bailouts
In an attempt to avoid disaster, resulting from the US Government financial bailout episode this year, AIG (American International Group) went through various iterations and streamlining spin-off exercises, one of which became Chartis.
Blackwater!
Blackwater was/is a private military contractor linked to the shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, 2007. Blackwater rebranded to become Xe. Enough said!
Poor Health
In 2003, amidst financially difficulties and public identification exclusively with tobacco, Phillip Morris (who owned 84% of Kraft Foods) rebranded to become Altria, demoting “Phillip Morris” to subsidiary status.
The ValuJet Airline Disaster
In 1996, whilst en route from Miami to Atlanta. a ValuJet Flight crashed killing passengers and civilians. Having had its credibility destroyed, the American budget airline was forced in to merging with AirTran Airways — adopting its name and identity.
MCI. MCI Worldcom. Worldcom. MCI
In 1997 MCI communications and Worldcom announced their US$37 billion merger. Following a much larger, US$129 billion, merger with Sprint Corporation in 1999, MCI Worldcom became Worldcom. In the wake of bankruptcy and accountancy scandal in 2002, it later became MCI.
Source: Is the ‘Helios’ destined for the scrap heap? on Identity Forum
Should brand owners invest in ownership of their own “.brand” domain, or is this just one last ICANN effort to monetize a no-longer-so-important monopoly? 
In a digital era — as BP attempts to shift assets, ‘cap’ expenses, restore reputation and rebuild trust — is it possible the global giant has invested enough in its brand and identity to be able to recover, without having to change face?
Notes