It seems either side of this debate wants to spin things accordingly, but the fundamental outcome of the forced rebranding is the same. And of course the people responsible for the decision to rebrand aren't going to point the blame at themselves. Those that protested and basically forced the name change aren't going to take responsibility for the job losses.
As for the other bullcrap excuses, like the $54M annual loss, I'll treat that spin with the disdain it deserves. Some basic knowledge of the industry would highlight / expose the truth that a rebranding of a major retail item brings a one off annual write-down like this. Market analysis, packaging, websites, advertising, POS, registered trademarks, everything from curtain-siders and billboards down to stationery items like business cards, the cost is enormous but it's mostly a one off. They knew all that long long before they pulled the trigger.
As for the other bullcrap excuses, like the $54M annual loss, I'll treat that spin with the disdain it deserves. Some basic knowledge of the industry would highlight / expose the truth that a rebranding of a major retail item brings a one off annual write-down like this. Market analysis, packaging, websites, advertising, POS, registered trademarks, everything from curtain-siders and billboards down to stationery items like business cards, the cost is enormous but it's mostly a one off. They knew all that long long before they pulled the trigger.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"