The word is out that Facebook is launching a new corporate master brand this week. A good example of a master brand is Unilever (the master brand) who sits over many product brands (e.g. Dove, Ben & Jerry’s, Lipton, Seventh Generation). Same goes for Procter & Gamble, the parent to Tide, Pampers and others. Corporate branding has always interested me. When I was at Weber Shandwick, we conducted two global studies on the importance of the corporate brand vs. product brands because they were becoming increasingly indivisible. As consumers found it easier to learn about a product’s lineage through social media, the parent brand or family name became even more critical in the purchase-decision process.  

I just went back to look at the second report and was stunned by the opening sentence. It could not be more true today than it was on the day the study was first published, particularly in light of Facebook’s long-suffering and self-inflicted wounds:

“In an age when business reputations are stress-tested on a daily basis, the companies behind the brands that people buy need to be trusted, transparent and accountable to withstand the rigors of life under a microscope.”

When 60% of a company’s market value is the result of its reputation, a lot is at stake. Since The Wall Street Journal published the first of its investigation, The Facebook Files, Facebook shares have fallen about 10% while the S&P 500 is flat. That’s the short-term cost of a reputation under duress.

The new master brand that Facebook will be launching is meant to stand behind the product brands and assure consumers that they can trust the quality, ethics and safety of the various sub-brands (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp). The master brand (sometimes called a house of brands or parent brand) demonstrates to the marketplace how a company can be expected to behave when facing difficult issues and take responsibility, deliver well-being to customers’ and employees’ lives and positively impact society and the world. That’s a tall order for all companies these days with the growing emphasis on ESG and one that Facebook probably needs to do a better job of answering and showing they mean business.

I agree that Facebook should launch a master brand that stands in for all its brands and sets the standard for its vision and values, commitment to all stakeholders and code of conduct. Google did just that in its restructuring to Alphabet. Alphabet is now the parent company over several former Google subsidiaries. However, now might not be the right time to launch this new Facebook master brand, whatever they name it (Meta is one name I’ve heard). A new Facebook master brand, no matter how good it is, will not add clarity and accountability to the muddied enterprise reputation it has now. Instead, because of the timing with the leaks about its research and alleged ill-intentions during the January 6th insurrection, it will look like the social media behemoth is trying to cover up its failings over misinformation spread and thinks that obfuscation will clear up the storm clouds overhead. Not going to happen.

Kara Swisher, The New York Times columnist, thinks it is also time for CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg to move on to the new master brand and leave Facebook in the hands of a believable, experienced, respected and untainted executive who can begin fixing the social network’s immense problems of credibility, transparency and social divisiveness. Zuckerberg would still oversee the company’s future but from a distance. Right now, Zuckerberg and the Facebook brand is damaged property and I fear it is only going to get worse. Death by one thousand nicks.