Major Adverts campaigns that just disappeared

Now what with this ??? You cant be unhappy because I never got to see the english adverts... Come on your smarter than this... by 2011 BOS and Halifax had demerged and were now separate banks with Different advertising departments.. It should be noted certain product are still in operations with in both banks because customers still have them.

Here is what the BOS had in 2011:

Before this degenerates into a needless slanging match with excessive roll-eyes emoji...

"Que signifie 1664?"

This was certainly supposed to be a major campaign from Kronenbourg... but it was pulled after two adverts. It seems only Young & Rubicam know how it was supposed to end...

I always get confused with the bank of Scotland and the royal bank of Scotland.

Halifax, is owned now, by the bank of Scotland which is in turn owned by Lloyds bank.

Natwest is owned by the royal bank of Scotland.

I was going to say the tomcat had technically not changed banks, thinking the royal bank of Scotland owned Halifax, wrong.

Surely it would save money to put them all under the same brand. Why do we need Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Lloyds. They could all be Lloyds if it were not for some rule I guess.

Same with Natwest and bank of Scotland.

Might you happen to have any video proof of this campaign?

We're probably getting into Metropol territory here, however...

from the LBG annual report:
It's partly brand loyalty (the report also points out that Bank of Scotland has been trading under that name for over 300 years), and partly offering different products for different segments. Lloyds has a fairly stead and traditional image, Halifax is about the whole 'giving something extra' thing, and BoS can pick and choose products from each, while also playing up on being Scottish, which goes further than you may think. (See my previous post about closing my BoS account - which I'd had since I was 1 - because of the Howard adverts, which was just another step in the Halifaxisation of the bank. However, I'm back with them - a decent current account being one reason, but the nice photo of some standing stones in the Isle of Lewis on my debit card did play a part.)


RBS/NatWest/Ulster Bank are much more similar in terms of their product range, but that's definitely playing up on brand loyalty and regionalism. They're also unlikely to rebrand to just RBS or NatWest because there's the constant looming spectre of them being split into separate businesses by the government,

Also the Bank of scotland and RBS can print scottish bank notes

There are more important reasons to choose a bank than their advertising or what the debit card looks like.



Interestingly this leads onto the 6 Nations being sponsored by NatWest rather than RBS next year due to the new ringfencing rules.

I am well aware of that, and have a frankly ridiculous number of financial products so that I can get a slightly higher cashback or interest rate depending on the precise circumstances, but don't underestimate brand loyalty and 'wallet appeal' in why people pick banks. (See also Monzo and their neon orange debit cards)

Video evidence of "Que signifie 1664?" is actually pretty hard to find - which just goes to show how much of an impact this campaign made.

So all credit to the great Matthew Harris, AKA Applemask, and Bob the Fish Productions for finding both adverts, in pretty decent quality, to feature in their "Hard Sell" series on Vimeo. (Skip to 27:07.)



This debate about whether banking groups like Lloyds or RBS should use just their own brand, rather than several, is obviously not TV related - but I'm going to add to it, while also mentioning another major ad campaign...

After Lloyds and the original TSB merged, of course, both banks were rebranded as Lloyds TSB. But just before the merger, Lloyds took over Cheltenham & Gloucester, and that brand remained on the high street until the creation of the current TSB in 2013. Lloyds had planned to close all the C&G branches a few years before - but before that, I assume that they too kept the brand out of loyalty and because C&G, as a former building society, offered something different.

Indeed, C&G's most famous ad campaign began shortly after the takeover - and was still going in 2003. While it probably didn't make *quite* the same impact that Howard did, it's nonetheless fondly remembered.

With banking it's partly regulatory, but it's not just banking that does it. Multiple brands for essentially the same thing gives an illusion of choice and helps give a company more market presence.

It's no difference to Ariel, Bold and Daz all being made by Proctor and Gamble; or Churchill, Direct Line, Admiral, Privilege all being insurance brands for the same company.

Or gives an illusion that a company is different from the parent company who have a poor reputation - Arrival Rail North using Northern for example.

Isn't that actually a case of keeping alive an active brand? Northern was the brand name of the previous franchisee. When Arriva took over, they changed the logo but kept the name.