.png)
Two recent comings-together have been announced. From wildly different sectors, they both create as many questions as answers and neither feels like a match made in heaven. M&A is hard (still something like 75% of deals fail to deliver the value they promise) but it can be made easier by using the brand strategy early in, and all the way through, the process.
First, the "mega-merger" of two law firms, one from the UK, the other from the US. This, I read, is a "game-changer". Really? The analyses I've read so far have all been on the same old criteria the legal sector drools over: number of Partners, geographic reach, sector specialisms, and (of course) remuneration schemes. The launch video of the two Talking Heads mentioned putting clients first, but didn't refer to them again. Probably best not to mention the fact that both of these game-changing firms were only recently trying to merge with two other firms, failed to for various reasons, before finding each other irresistible.
And the brand? Ah, in true law firm style, they've dealt with that with admirable depth. They've thought about the name. What else would "brand" mean? Some fancy thinking has been done on where and how to use ampersands, so that's that. The merger still needs a big majority of partners to agree before it can be confirmed, but now they've sorted out the ampersands, what else do they need?
No news yet on whether ampersands will have a role in the other merger announced this week. After two years of threatened and real law suits, public dismantling of each other's right to exist, and vitriolic division, the PGA Tour, DP World Tour and LIV Golf are going to demonstrate how three can go into one. There are no details yet on how it's actually going to work, but apparently that's ok. The Commissioner of the PGA Tour said last year that while he was in that position, "no player that took LIV money will ever play the PGA Tour again." Which doesn't leave him a lot of wiggle room, you would think. And, on the basis that no organisation can ever be something its leader is not, I imagine that the new entity is going to be equivocal, hypocritical and totally bereft of credibility. So that's good.
I've been involved in a few M&As, and am certain that whether they end up as one of the 75% that fail, or the 25% that don't, is massively influenced by whether both parties are guided by (and true to) their brand. Whatever the spreadsheets and bankers say, success is dependent on the people in each of the legacy organisations: if the vision and values, priorities and culture don't feel right (and better than people have experienced until now) the people charged with delivering the new promise simply won't.
And all the Latin numerals and ampersands in the world won't change that.