Webinar: What Most M&A Deals Get Wrong About Branding

[FULL TRANSCRIPT]

BILL GULLAN

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us. I’m Bill Gullan, President of Finch Brands, and I’m joined by Ariel DuChene, our Vice President of Strategy & Growth.

Today we’re discussing a topic that is often overlooked in mergers and acquisitions: the role of brand in value creation. While most M&A activity focuses heavily on identifying targets, conducting diligence, structuring transactions, and integrating operations, we believe there’s another critical dimension that deserves equal attention: brand.

At Finch Brands, we work with organizations navigating moments of significant change, including acquisitions, mergers, portfolio transformations, and large-scale integrations. No transaction is undertaken simply for the sake of doing a deal. Every acquisition is intended to create value through greater scale, expanded capabilities, broader customer reach, talent acquisition, or market access.

Closing a deal and realizing the value of that deal are two very different things.

While most M&A processes are built around successfully completing a transaction, brand plays an important role throughout the entire lifecycle. Brand is not simply a logo, a name, or a visual identity. It is the expression of what an organization stands for and how it creates value.

Brand helps answer critical questions throughout the M&A process:

• Does this organization fit within our portfolio?
• What equity are we acquiring?
• What should the combined organization stand for?
• What brand elements should be preserved?
• What should customers, employees, and stakeholders experience during the transition?
• How does this transaction strengthen competitive advantage and enterprise value?

Brand is the thread that should run through the entire M&A lifecycle.

Why Brand Matters in M&A

BILL GULLAN

Research consistently shows that many acquisitions fail to achieve the value originally envisioned. Although studies define success and failure differently, the broader point remains clear: realizing deal value is often more difficult than completing the transaction itself.

Common reasons include:

• Customer confusion
• Employee uncertainty
• Loss of valuable brand equity
• Cultural misalignment
• Inconsistent messaging
• Unclear market positioning

While these may initially appear to be branding or communications challenges, each ultimately becomes a business challenge.

That is why we believe brand should not be viewed as a marketing exercise. In the context of M&A, brand is the most visible expression of the deal thesis itself. It helps customers and employees understand why the transaction matters and why the combined organization will be stronger than either company was independently.

Today, rather than focusing on theory, we’re going to explore seven common myths we encounter in M&A branding and examine real-world examples that demonstrate why these beliefs often create challenges for organizations.

Myth #1: Branding Can Wait

BILL GULLAN

The first myth is that branding can be addressed after the deal is complete.

The logic behind this belief is understandable. During a transaction, organizations are managing diligence processes, regulatory requirements, timelines, and countless operational priorities. Branding can feel secondary.

The problem is that organizations begin making brand decisions immediately, whether they recognize them as such or not.

• What are we telling employees?
• How are we communicating with customers?
• What happens to acquired brands?
• Which organization becomes the lead brand?

These decisions establish expectations and shape perceptions from the outset. Branding does not require every answer on day one, but it cannot simply wait until after the transaction closes.

Case Study: Abacus and Medicus

Abacus, a managed services provider serving financial institutions, merged with Medicus, a healthcare-focused provider with similar capabilities.

Rather than focusing immediately on logos or visual identity, leadership concentrated on communicating the strategic rationale for the combination.

Why is this good news?

By clearly articulating the benefits for employees, customers, and stakeholders before public announcement, the organization established alignment and momentum from the beginning.

Myth #2: No Change Is the Safest Choice

ARIEL DUCHENE

Another common belief is that maintaining the status quo is the safest approach. Organizations often decide to retain existing names and structures because change can feel risky.

In reality, choosing not to change is itself a strategic decision. Whenever we conduct brand architecture work, “no change” is always one of the options considered. However, it deserves the same rigorous evaluation as any other path.

Case Study: 3Si

3Si, a global security company, had completed numerous acquisitions while allowing acquired businesses to continue operating independently.

Research revealed confusion among both employees and customers regarding organizational identity and value proposition.

The solution was not a new name. Instead, the organization clarified how acquired entities connected to the larger 3Si brand while also revisiting:

• Purpose
• Mission
• Values
• Organizational identity

The result was a more cohesive culture and a stronger market-facing story.

Myth #3: We Need a New Name

ARIEL DUCHENE

Clients often come to us believing the answer is a new corporate name. While naming can be exciting, our philosophy is simple:

Naming follows strategy.

Before selecting a name, organizations must understand where they are headed and what the future organization represents.

Case Study: Sagent

We worked with a Midwest behavioral health organization that had grown through multiple acquisitions.

The leadership team had already invested heavily in strategic planning and defined a future vision centered on helping people navigate mental health journeys while maintaining personal agency.

Those strategic insights informed the development of the name Sagent, which combines the concepts of wisdom, or “sage,” and agency.

The name succeeded because it emerged from strategy rather than driving strategy.

Myth #4: We Just Need a New Logo

ARIEL DUCHENE

Many organizations assume branding means creating a new visual identity. In reality, design exists to communicate strategic decisions.

Case Study: Eastern State Penitentiary

Eastern State Penitentiary is one of the most historic landmarks in Philadelphia.

Research revealed that while visitors recognized it as a unique historical attraction, they were largely unaware of the organization’s broader mission around justice education and public dialogue.

What initially appeared to be a design project became a strategic branding engagement. The work clarified two essential dimensions of the organization:

• The historic site itself
• The Center for Justice Education

The visual identity was then developed to support and communicate that broader organizational strategy.

Myth #5: The Ideal Brand Architecture Is Too Aggressive

BILL GULLAN

One of the most difficult decisions in any merger involves determining brand architecture. Organizations typically choose among four paths:

• Adopt one brand
• Combine existing brands
• Continue operating separately
• Create something entirely new

Leaders often recognize the ideal long-term solution but worry that moving too quickly may create risk.

The key is understanding the difference between the destination and the migration path.

Case Study: Emplify Health

Bellin Health and Gundersen Health System merged to create a new healthcare organization.

Rather than immediately retiring both legacy brands, the organization adopted an endorsement strategy:

• Emplify Health by Bellin
• Emplify Health by Gundersen

This approach allowed the organization to gradually transfer equity and trust from the legacy brands to the new enterprise brand while minimizing disruption.

The result was a thoughtful transition that honored heritage while building toward the future.

Myth #6: Branding Is Subjective

BILL GULLAN

People often describe branding as subjective. At one level, that is true. Personal preferences are subjective. However, strategic brand decisions should not rely solely on opinion.

Strong branding processes are built on:

• Research
• Structured evaluation
• Decision frameworks
• Agreed-upon criteria

Case Study: KUSTOM

KUSTOM has expanded rapidly through acquisition, adding numerous regional restoration businesses.

The challenge was determining how and when acquired brands should transition into the master brand.

Rather than relying on executive opinion, we developed a framework that included:

• Brand scorecards
• Evaluation criteria
• Decision trees
• Migration guidelines

This created a repeatable process for future acquisitions and ensured strategic consistency.

Myth #7: Purpose, Mission, and Values Are Just HR Tools

ARIEL DUCHENE

Many organizations view purpose, mission, and values as internal HR assets. We believe they are foundational branding assets.

The strongest brands are built from the inside out.

Employees ultimately determine whether brand promises come to life through everyday actions and experiences.

During M&A moments, aligning organizations around a shared purpose becomes particularly important because it helps unite cultures and create consistency.

Case Study: Trumark Financial Credit Union

Through research with employees, current members, and prospective members, Trumark uncovered a fundamental truth:

Members deserve more.

That insight became the foundation for the organization’s purpose, mission, and values. Key values included:

• Care deeply about outcomes
• Work smarter together
• Do what’s right to earn trust
• Put members at the center

These principles were embedded into onboarding, employee recognition, and performance expectations, transforming them from statements into behaviors.

Closing Thoughts

ARIEL DUCHENE

Successful M&A branding creates measurable business value. When organizations approach branding strategically, they often experience:

• Faster integration
• Stronger employee alignment
• Better customer retention
• Greater cross-selling opportunities
• Stronger market positioning
• Increased enterprise value

Brand is not separate from the transaction. It is one of the primary mechanisms through which organizations realize the value they expected when the deal was conceived.

BILL GULLAN

Customer research also plays a vital role throughout the process. It helps organizations assess brand strength, understand stakeholder perceptions, identify transition risks, and make more informed decisions regarding architecture, positioning, messaging, and integration planning.

Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate your time and the opportunity to share our perspective on the role of branding in successful M&A outcomes.