The world is full of labels and names. The private wealth industry is no exception. From firm names, to job titles and even firm types. But, do these names matter? Would a private banker by any other name smell as sweet?
A lot of firms seem to think not. Rebrands are regular occurrences. The most recent of these is of course Tilney Smith & Williamson, which is due to become Evelyn Partners this summer.
It cannot escape notice that some clients will have been serviced by Towry, Tilney, Tilney Smith & Williamson, Evelyn Partners, and potentially even NatWest if one is to believe the latest rumours. This is all without the client moving firms of their own accord.
Tilney Smith & Williamson is not alone in rebranding. My predecessor – Alexandra Newlove – took a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of wealth management rebrands last year, with abrdn, Kingswood and Quintet all featuring.
Given all these rebrands, it is reasonable to assume the name really does matter to firms. Names represent the brand and come with connotations. Getting it right is very important – although many rebrands get it wrong.
It is not just the name firms care about. Some can be particular about how they are described.
For example, no firm wants the label of consolidator, even if they are consolidating. Similarly, tech companies do not always like to describe themselves in this way. Instead, they prefer to be “innovative providers of change” or other such phrases.
As the lines between private banks, wealth managers and investment managers continue to blur, firms might become less attached to their descriptions. Although, there is an argument to say they might hold on tighter.
So many firms describe themselves as “the leading wealth manager”, or “the top private bank”. Very rarely is any evidence provided for these claims, although they will appear in every press release or communications from the firm.
Perhaps firms see these descriptions as a way to distinguish themselves from competitors. Whether this is a successful strategy or not can be disputed.
Regardless, it seems unlikely these labels will be going anywhere for the time being at least.
The final piece of the naming puzzle is perhaps the most personal. Job titles mean a lot to individuals, particularly in the age of LinkedIn where it is so easy to compare progress against peers.
The lack of alignment across the industry further complicates it. One firm’s executive is another’s assistant, which in turn is another firm’s director. Meanwhile, at US banks vice president and president are common job titles – but do not always convey the seniority they would suggest.
Do titles actually matter? At the end of the day, if you do a good job, clients are unlikely to be put off by a job title.
However, employees are still concerned. Their job title matters to them. Some believe a more impressive job title will improve their prospects with new clients, others believe it will help them build professional connections.
