Anheuser-Busch InBev

New:  Company, name and logo

Launched:  November 18, 2008, upon closing of the acquisition

Story in brief:
Based on its perky (but illegible) bow-tie-on-a-globe logo, Anheuser-Busch must have thought it owned the world. That was before InBev acquired it.  Case closed. If it's beer, it's now probably Belgian, as destiny may have intended. 

And to Belgium may be where the eagle is headed... to Leuven,  ABInBev's headquarters since 1366. Fascinating recent history. The "Interbrew" brand, you may recall, was launched in 1987, disclosing the secret merger of two bitterly competitive family-owned Belgian breweries (one Flemish, one Walloon). Then in 2004 Interbrew bought Brazil's AmBev and became InBev.  InBev's new Brazilian energizer, CEO Carlos Brito, then targeted North America's leading brewer, and in winning Anheuser-Busch, InBev replaced SABMiller as the world's leader.

FutureBrand's London office won the rebranding assignment. The name decision — to retain "Anheuser-Busch" and add InBev to it — was a negotiated deal-sweetener rather than a branding choice, and it forced the designation of a shorter communicative name. The choice of AB+InBev in turn forced a graphic wordmark designed to help us see and speak these otherwise awkwardly combined syllables — thus, the red AB. (The eagle, flying by, adds personality. )

Credits:
C.E.O. - Carlos Brito
Identity counsel - TBD
Identity design - FutureBrand

First Impressions:
Strategy: Questionable; as an identity it is inherently unstable, and probably transitory.   "Merger of equals" branding cannot be sustained here for the long term (and face it, this was an acquisition).  In the short term, it perpetuates divided cultures and in the longer term, it merely memorializes a one-time transaction. The quicker this reverts to Inbev, the better.
Naming: Atrocious. The formal name "Anheuser-Busch InBev," at six syllables, is a non-starter as communicative name.  But Abinbev (or even, if we all comply, ABInBev and we won't; it's too much shift-key work) is no tower of strength, even if we can all agree to a pronunciation.
Design:  The wordmark decision, to separate AB from InBev by color (and a distracting ligature) may help teach us to speak "a,b, inbev," but it also perpetuates duality.  The bird, an unneeded distraction, may be more beery in hue but has lost its American Bald Eagle authenticity; what is it now, a Golden Eagle?  (The new InBev letterforms, however, are nicely drawn; therein,  the future brand?)

Given the amateur naming decision, FutureBrand arguably did the best it could via design. And while the result remains compromised, it is yet more professional in appearance than was either predecessor brand.

 

Corporate Brand Matrix (preliminary) ratings:  
80% structural,  20% strategic,  0% functional