We were just talking about when you engaged us to advise on the potential merger of two food companies last year. One was a regional ice cream brand, beloved by a loyal but aging customer base. The other was a national frozen dinners brand, widely known but beloved by few. 

‍

Your team had developed reams of data about the market, each company’s assets, projections of operational synergies —much of the diligence required of such a transaction. You’d also consumed copious amounts of both companies’ products; an unforeseen, at-first–delightful-but-soon-regrettable occupational hazard. 

‍

In black and white, the deal was a no-brainer. Manufacturing, supply chain, packaging, facilities and back office aspects of the two businesses were perfectly complementary.

‍

We were there to create and game out scenarios for a post-merger brand architecture. Should you maintain both brands separately? Insert complementary offerings into one another’s portfolios? Kill one and introduce its customers to the other? Create an altogether new brand? A veritable buffet of options. 

‍

As you know, the deal didn’t ultimately go through. Many factors contributed to its demise, but a central one was that the significant operational efficiencies that made the deal look good on paper (and in the freezer) weren’t matched by a similar set of brand benefits — neither operationally nor for the consumer. Those who favored the highly personal touch of one brand just wouldn’t value the ice cold efficiency of the other.

‍

The same rang true culturally. Despite seemingly similar ownership pedigrees, the companies’ employee bases were such opposites that even the most considered integration would have compromised the strengths of both. One thrived on data and process, the other on intuition and tradition. Had it been a pure acquisition of assets this might not have mattered. But since it hinged on a merger of cultures as well, the prospect of implementing the change required was about as appetizing as adding carrots and peas to the butter pecan. 

‍

Deals fall apart; that’s not on you. This one needed to run its course. 

‍

The parties couldn’t have known the potential brand and cultural outcomes without playing out the hypotheses. We needed to do the brand architecture modeling, take the cultural pulse, and explore visual and verbal prototypes for each scenario to make proper assessments. 

‍

That process allowed the visual learners among the parties to communicate more clearly with the number crunchers. It enabled internal data and external expression to create a fuller picture of the possibilities and pitfalls. None of which would have happened had we not gotten in the same room, talked through every viable option, and had honest conversations about what might happen.

‍

And this is where the brand expertise you called on us for is invaluable. In the same way you brought in supply chain experts and had analysts interrogate financial records, having a specialist look at the brand implications of the acquisition was a key part of due diligence. It always should be. Bean counters aren't enough. Sometimes, you need a few fresh eyes on the challenge, bold voices in the room, and iron stomachs for the food tastings.

‍

In any event, we hope the deal pipeline is filling up for you, even if you’re holding back on a second bowl of ice cream. As it does, we hope you’ll call on the expertise and experience of The Indelible to provide perspective on this often overlooked element of fit. 

‍

We’re ready to help. 

‍

Indelibly yours,

Mike, Jeff, Matt & Thom