Bank of America's new a $10 million print and online advertising campaign--which will start up in earnest in July---touts a new Bank of America Merrill Lynch investment bank division, aiming to leverage the brand value of Merrill's famous bull. Later this year, according to the Financial Times, the bull will again be used in a TV and print campaign that touts the combined firm's brokerage force, the latest incarnation of the Thundering Herd. 

Such branding issues are a matter of prime importance. Anne Finucane, chief marketing officer at Bank of America, tells the paper that it interviewed several hundred executives at client companies, of both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, as well as prospective clients to sound out their opinion. The conclusion was that the combined brand was stronger than each one individually. The one area where you might quibble is in the retail brokerage industry. 

But it remains to be seen if that considerable brand power can be a salve for the many wounds the combined entity has suffered. A brand can only be as strong as the substance that sits behind it, and it's clear that the Bank of America name has been tarnished. The recent annual shareholders meeting was a disaster, from a PR perspective. The long media windup revolved around the question of whether Ken Lewis would survive. Then came the actual vote, which striped him of the chairman title--adding injury to insult. 

Then came Lewis's appearance before Congress, where some members voiced skepticism that he didn't feel browbeaten into plowing ahead with the Merrill Lynch deal by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. That testimony stands in contrast to a Frontline documentary that paints Lewis, in "anxious tones," "as the humble victim of a bullying" regulator, according to the New York Times. 

"The documentary unabashedly portrays Mr. Paulson as a sort of Tony Soprano, forcing the deal on an initially eager Mr. Lewis, giving him little choice even as Mr. Lewis expressed concern about Merrill's huge losses and wanted out, believing the acquisition would send his own bank to ruin." One danger is that Lewis comes off wishy-washy. Was he a victim? Was he really in the dark about Merrill's losses? If so, was he not strong enough to stop it? 

Clearly, the marketing team, which includes the PR folks, have their work cut out for them. But all of this is inside baseball, to some extent. It remains to be seen exactly how all the drama has affected public perceptions. The bull is certainly a powerful marketing asset that ought to be deployed to maximum advantage. The backdrop against which this re-branding will take place is not necessarily favorable. The most recent J.D. Powers' survey has found that customer loyalty is dipping, creating favorable conditions for bank switching. - Jim