Poll: Is re-branding new acquisitions an unnecessary risk?
This week's poll asks readers whether a single-brand or multi-brand approach works best
The debate over whether a single or multi-brand approach works best has rumbled on for years, but a number of firms are currently facing their own versions of the dilemma, and it appears there is little consensus on which path is the right one to take.
Last week following its Q3 results, Unibet CEO Henrik Tjärnström told eGaming Review that he believes it is better to have just a single sports betting brand in each market, following his firm’s acquisition of Stan James earlier this year.
Unibet has been successful in re-branding acquisitions in the past, but others have struggled with the approach, even when the potential synergies and benefits are clear.
William Hill began the process of re-branding its Australian acquisitions earlier this year, but sacrificing well-established brands in favour of the William Hill name, which gained just a 21% consumer recognition mark at the start of the year, clearly carries risk, and many figures within the industry believe it is an unnecessary one.
“I can tell you that we won’t be rebranding anything,” GVC CEO Kenny Alexander told eGR ahead of the firm’s acquisition of bwin.party earlier this year. “I think there are some great brands in there so why would you ever want to rebrand? I’ve never rebranded any business I’ve acquired and I’m not going to start now,” he added.
Meanwhile Betsson, which recently reported another set of strong quarterlies, has found success while taking the multi-brand approach.
Even Ladbrokes and Coral have said they remain committed to maintaining both brands should its proposed merger complete next year, although the announcement may have been designed to allay the fears of the competition authority.
So with this in mind, this week’s eGR poll asks whether a single brand approach makes sense, or is re-branding new acquisitions an unnecessary risk? Have your say on the right hand side of the page.