Here is an interesting story from the BBC about design guru Terence Conran and how he is keen to control how his own name – now a successful brand – is used on a global basis.
Conran set up his flagship Conran Design Store in 1987 under the control of Storehouse group after founding retail chain Habitat in the 1960s. His surname became almost a shortcut for quality design at reasonable prices but in 1990, he left the Storehouse group to form Conran Holdings after a falling out with the board there.
Storehouse – which also owned retailers BHS and Mothercare – was later broken up and the rights to the name Conran Design Group (CDG) were bought by RSCG. This firm, RSCG, was in turn bought by French advertising giant Havas, which is now keen to use the CDG brand on a global scale.
While Conran retains the right to challenge and veto CDG work, the time lag in addressing any design issues in court means that this has not yet occurred. But now that Havas are keen to use CDG outside the domestic UK market in a global setting, Conran claims that there is a moral argument that the group’s plans do not fit the integrity of his original brand vision.
The ad network’s response has so far been that it owns the global rights to the name and Conran should not be surprised that having been sold these, the company plans to use them.
An interesting dilemma, although apparently a solution could be on the cards after Conran wrote to Havas boss Vincent Bollore to suggest a meeting to iron out any differences.
What do you think? Does Conran have a point or should he just accept that in selling the rights, he has lost control of what the brand now does?
April 15, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
This is rather sad and I fear it’s damaging the image we have of Sir Terence.
If I remember correctly, he expanded Habitat dramatically to form Storehouse but it then got into financial difficulty and he was ousted. Before he departed, he personally organised for Conran Design Group to be sold and he agreed to the sale for millions of pounds which included a licence to use the name Conran Design Group worldwide. RSCG became Havas – it didn’t ’sell CDG to Havas’.
To now claim that it’s morally wrong for the name to be used is bizarre. If he gets his way, watch out Saatchi & Saatchi, J P Morgan, Ogilvy… the families of their founders will be asking for you to stop using their name on moral grounds!