[canucklad]

This is an interesting topic, and it seems that what makes a brand what it is, is dependent on what criteria a consultancy firm, or advertising agency or whatever decides to use as a measurement. Hence BA is no. 1 on the Superbrands site yet 90 elsewhere!

Since we are all unique individuals, with different backgrounds, I’d like to list my top 5 British global brands, but in 2 categories….those with a direct link to Britishness by name, so as an example at the top of my list is……

1) RBS ……..truly British since we, the taxpayers own it !
2) BT ……….
3) Manchester United……. I’m not a fan
4) British Airways……. But is IAG not registered in Madrid?
5) BBC…… A true institution owned by all of us

Secondly, British brands that are globally recognised without having a link to Britain in their name…….

1) Marks & Spencer
2) Johnny Walker
3) Rolls Royce
4) Virgin
5) Sky…specifically News & Sports

On a different day, possibly my 5 would change, in each list, as I’ve not included BP, nor Boots or Mini etc…..

[Edski777]

In today’s globalized world multinational companies use a name as a marketing tool. The label says very little about the content. Yes, BA could be renamed “Greater London Airways”, but what does it matter?
Using the term British only serves the purpose of giving people a good feeling, appeal to their chauvinism.
Do we really look behind the label? No, we like to be fooled. And companies happily comply. We go for what gives us the best feeling, the lowest price, the most legroom, the best service. Some of the facts that we base our choices on are subjective at best. Fairytales spread by marketeers. In the end we buy what we think we know.
But again: go beyond the marketing. With BA or any stock exchange listed company: do we know who owns these stocks? If some of these companies would be majority owned by foreign investers would these companies still be regarded “British”?
If a company like Airbus, supposedly a Franco/German company, has it official head office in Amsterdam (for tax reasons apparently) does it become a Dutch company?

In todays global village borders don’t exist anymore, companies do business where it suites them best. Names can be changed, head offices, operations and the like can be moved overnight.
We are witnessing a race to the bottom in terms of costs.

19th century emotions tied to a name are there only for luring in customers.

[paulkaz]

An interesting thread are these points relevant to BA ‘s Britishness?
1 the aircraft they fly are registered using the G prefix which means the United Kindom( an amalgam of Great Britain and Northern Ireland apparently),
2 their operations are based in London( LHR &LGW) the capital of the United Kingdom, and
3 their employees are presumesbly British by a large majority.
If IAG is based in Madrid do they pay tax on their income in Spain or Great Britain? It would give Karl a great (!) argument if they call themselves British but don’t contribute to the British tax revenue.

[rferguson]

Paulkaz – IAG uses Spain as it’s domicile for tax and is incorporated there. It’s primarily listing is on the London Stock Exchange. It’s operational headquarters are in London for all the subsidiaries.

[KarlMarx]

Shall we start off with some (inconvenient) facts?

1 – one cannot just start a business and call it ‘British’ or ‘United Kingdom’ etc, these names are officially controlled for a reason

2 – “I guess few would argue that BA has the legal right to use the term british as it flies all over britain.” No, to register a company with the name ‘British’ in the title requires official sanction, per point 1

2 – British Aerospace was a name used in the last century, it was withdrawn from use in 1999. RFerguson is correct BAE SYSTEMS does indeed have more business in the USA than the UK and I imagine (speculation) that the rebranding may have been to support a strategy of broadening the horizons across the Atlantic

Is it a wish for punishment? Why should BA be punished, it has done what a focused business should do and designed a strategy it believes in.

The Noblesse Oblige comment simply states that privilege carries with it responsibility and if you are fortunate enough to have the same branding as a flag carrier (which BA is not) it might be wise to behave in a more responsible way to all your stakeholders.

Canucklad, you make an interesting comparison in your two lists – it is entirely possible to build a strong global brand without country reference, as your second list illustrates.

Edski777 I support your thinking. My beef with BA is not that it is taking advantage of the facilities of the global village, for your comments are on the mark, but that it seems to have such a blatant disregard for many of the stakeholders in whose name it operates. If it rebranded to, e.g., Capital #1 Airlines, I would not feel the same way.

The Airbus situation is interesting, as the company brand is non-geographic, but you are right to question whether it is Dutch (legally, i suppose) or Franco-German (still has the biggest footprint there.)

Finally, ‘British’ probably appeals to more US citizens than to people with chauvinistic tendencies at home.

I started this thread for some interesting entertainment (so thanks for those who have joined in) and am just find it interesting how many people (on the the other thread) get so defensive when I point out that a very large corporation is effectively getting a free brand ride based on flag carrier status in a different world 40 odd years ago.

[MrMichael]

Thanks SimonS1 for finding the same web page I had found.

I think if a company wishes to use its British credentials then why not. Britain does have some absolutely superb brands from M&S to Rolls Royce. Indeed Rolls Royce is a term often used as an adjective to describe the very best of something.

But I guess the question here is whether or not British Airways is a British Airline. Well of course it is, it does afternoon tea for Christ’s sake!

[KarlMarx]

paulkaz – 06/07/2015 11:52 BST

I have deliberately stayed well clear of tax implications, because (a) it is a minefield and (b) BA will contribute substantially to the economy via direct and indirect employment and taxation arising from that.

Also, just to be clear, there is no doubt that British Airways is a British company, in the same way that Loganair is or easyJet (the UK part) or Flybe for that matter.

The question is should the company operate policies that are designed to put customers outside of a certain catchment area at a disadvantage, whilst painting the word ‘British’ in very tall letters on the side of their fleet?

Edited to respond to Mr Michael. BA is a British airline, no doubt about that as far as I’m concerned.

[rferguson]

Karl – I totally get where you are coming from. But what country in Britain does BA either not fly to (multiple times daily) or have a large operation in? On what basis would it not be deemed suitable to the title ‘british’ even though having the word ‘british’ is not an automatic right? This is the one thing I cannot understand in your argument. If BA’s operation in Scotland/NI/Wales was zero or a token daily flight I would probably agree with you. But this is simply not the case.

‘The question is should the company operate policies that are designed to put customers outside of a certain catchment area at a disadvantage, whilst painting the word ‘British’ in very tall letters on the side of their fleet?’. Like what policies does BA operate to put customers at a disadvantage by where they live? By not flying unprofitable routes? Or others?

[KarlMarx]

RF

One example. Why did BA change the BAEC to make passengers from the regions pay for their add on redemptions, when they had withdrawn regional services in the first place?

IMHO (and you are entitled to disagree) this is not worthy behaviour of a company seeking to label itself ‘British.’

[rferguson]

KM I think that example and using the term ‘british’ are two very different topics. MANY of the recent exec club changes are negative – wherever one lives.

I don’t disagree that the domestic tag on removal was probably short sighted and perhaps there could have been some compromise there.

[rferguson]

BA has it’s biggest engineering base worldwide in Cardiff. 1,050 employees.

[KarlMarx]

RF

Across the board negative changes is no problem, to my mind. Targeting the regions is discriminatory, IMHO.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am based in SE England.

[rferguson]

KM I can understand that was an unpopular decision and if i’m honest i’m not sure how other airlines operate in that regard. I’m not sure if for example Air France allows Flying Blue holders to fly say NCE/LYS/MRS to Paris gratis. I know SAS Eurobonus definitely does not with the Norwegians having to use extra points to fly via CPH to get to most destinations.

A quick question though – let’s say BA reversed that decision tomorrow. Would that then entitle it to retain the brand ‘british’? Or would it take further action? What (in your view) would be necessary for an airline to do to call itself ‘british’.

Anyway….as we agreed on the earlier thread we are going to have differing views on this as you are british and I am not. And I don’t want to be accused of being like two bald men fighting over a comb again. I am very sensitive about my hairline lol. So I will bow out! Happy debating. It is an interesting topic.

[rferguson]

And anyway – you know it’s going to be rebranded in a few years, right?
American British Airways of Spain. 😉

[canucklad]

In my first post, I eluded to definition of a Brand, and I’ll take it further……
My company is almost paranoiac about protecting it’s “Brand” . Our brand management, correctly understands that the key word/feelings associated with “BRAND” is trust.

Therefore……
Do I trust BA ?…..…Yes
Has BA let me down? ……Yes
Is BA, the best of “British” ? ……… I suppose it depends on what I consider to be “best” !!1

And remember, just by sticking a label on something doesn’t necessarily mean you can convince people of your intentions to be something ……

What the good people of KLM were thinking about when they tagged on the letter’s U & K to their name, only they know!!

And talking about KLM, here’s some other strong airline brands that don’t make reference to their country of origin……..Lufthansa, QANTAS, Cathay, Aer Lingus, Delta, United and I’m sure there’s more…

[Author]

Posts