Nottingham Building Society - new logo and branding

WillPS

[Deleted User] said:

It never ceases to amaze me why the likes of Nationwide or Nottingham pay money (WASTE money) to some 'trendy' - code for clueless - PR firm when there is not a cat in hells chance they will get any value from this.

They will not entice one more customer because of this and may just alienate a few locals.

I'm not a Nottingham BS customer but what are the bigwigs thinking? How can they be so dumb to be fooled into thinking this is good/bad or anything but pointless?

Could it perhaps be possible that they (as in, the industry) know more than you, and there is in fact a value in a successful rebrand?

allegro120

Looks cheerful and very different from all other BSs.  I don't know what the main goal of this project was, but I'd imagine to attract more borrowers.  Lenders will come when Nottingham BS offers attractive products, not because of the look of website.

I personally wasn't affected by this change.  I have RS with with them which is not accesible on line so don't need to use their website.

HillStreetBlues

Robin Hood given the Spanish Archer

subjecttocontract

Nope. I don't get it.
I didn't see Nottingham BS offering anything worthwhile for an Essex lad before the rebrand and there is still nothing remotely worthwhile afterwards.

LHW99

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

It never ceases to amaze me why the likes of Nationwide or Nottingham pay money (WASTE money) to some 'trendy' - code for clueless - PR firm when there is not a cat in hells chance they will get any value from this.

They will not entice one more customer because of this and may just alienate a few locals.

I'm not a Nottingham BS customer but what are the bigwigs thinking? How can they be so dumb to be fooled into thinking this is good/bad or anything but pointless?

Could it perhaps be possible that they (as in, the industry) know more than you, and there is in fact a value in a successful rebrand?

Always assuming this one ends up being successful.........

WillPS

LHW99 said:

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

It never ceases to amaze me why the likes of Nationwide or Nottingham pay money (WASTE money) to some 'trendy' - code for clueless - PR firm when there is not a cat in hells chance they will get any value from this.

They will not entice one more customer because of this and may just alienate a few locals.

I'm not a Nottingham BS customer but what are the bigwigs thinking? How can they be so dumb to be fooled into thinking this is good/bad or anything but pointless?

Could it perhaps be possible that they (as in, the industry) know more than you, and there is in fact a value in a successful rebrand?

Always assuming this one ends up being successful.........

Not my assumption, but no business would plump for such a thing without at least hoping it'd be successful.

For clarity I'm not commenting on the quality of this or any rebrand, I'm just question the wisdom of a blanket statement suggesting they're all a waste.

masonic

I think they are just trying to appeal to a slightly different target market...

"Anyone got any salmon? Sorted!!"

Chloe_G

The font/logo is appalling and possibly worse than Virgin Money.

Section62

[Deleted User] said:

Section62 said:

nottsphil said:

Nobody has explained why he contradicts inclusivity though, but I think I know the reason.

The headline actually says 'financially inclusive' - and I can kind of see their point.  Robbing the rich is clear discrimination, and probably not something you want to be associated with when you want to encourage 'the rich' to deposit money with you.

Also must be something in the FCA rules about financial service providers not associating themselves with financial crime?

I think you (and they) are taking things a fair bit too literally and seriously. Modern Britain for you - everyone is yampy.

...alternatively, you didn't spot my post wasn't meant to be taken as 'literally and seriously' as you have done.

As you say, "Modern Britain..."

artyboy

Section62 said:

nottsphil said:

Nobody has explained why he contradicts inclusivity though, but I think I know the reason.

The headline actually says 'financially inclusive' - and I can kind of see their point.  Robbing the rich is clear discrimination, and probably not something you want to be associated with when you want to encourage 'the rich' to deposit money with you.

Also must be something in the FCA rules about financial service providers not associating themselves with financial crime?

If robbing the rich is discriminatory, then could you perhaps have a word with Rachel Reeves for us...? 

As for that second part, I'd have thought Robin Hood's philosophy would have been very helpful to a firm's ESG credentials. That said, I'm not sure he ever had an internal audit...