An important concept laid out well with real-world examples. I like it.
You say that splitting is not possible as you need a new name that has to be filled with new trust. One thing I have learned from some professional managers and people who seem good at naming things: A good name takes an existing well-known name and adds a bit to it. Half of the quality of a name is the right name to build on top of. That is why there are so many “X 2.0” and “X Plus”. And with your model, it becomes clear why: In these cases, you do take over (some) of the reputation to the new brand.
PS. You really should let someone spell-check your text or run it thru a grammar checker.
Real example: When Bell Telephones was split up, the child companies kept the Bell moniker and added the name of a region to differentiate themselves (e.g. Bell Atlantic) for this exact reason.
An important concept laid out well with real-world examples. I like it.
You say that splitting is not possible as you need a new name that has to be filled with new trust. One thing I have learned from some professional managers and people who seem good at naming things: A good name takes an existing well-known name and adds a bit to it. Half of the quality of a name is the right name to build on top of. That is why there are so many “X 2.0” and “X Plus”. And with your model, it becomes clear why: In these cases, you do take over (some) of the reputation to the new brand.
PS. You really should let someone spell-check your text or run it thru a grammar checker.
Real example: When Bell Telephones was split up, the child companies kept the Bell moniker and added the name of a region to differentiate themselves (e.g. Bell Atlantic) for this exact reason.
Good point about extended names. Yet one more operation that can be done with reputation tokens.
As for the spelling, I’ve tried to fix what I could. Feel free to point out any remaining typos.