By Jeff Wilson, APR (@wilson0507)

In Shakespeare’s classic “Romeo and Juliet,” it was fair Juliet who quipped, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” While this may have held true for star-crossed lovers in Shakespearean times, the same doesn’t hold true for corporations operating today.

Take BP for example. “The energy giant … which once packaged itself as an environmental visionary now confronts the future with a new identity: progenitor of the worst oil spill in American history,” writes Peter S. Goodman of The New York Times.

Even though BP has worked with the federal government to set up a $20 billion claims fund – which starting this week is being processed by the independent Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) – the damage done to the BP name and reputation may be irreversible.

Could an inevitable name change be on the horizon for BP? Perhaps. But a corporate name change is not something that should be taken lightly or done hastily. Corporate name changes can be lengthy and expensive propositions.

“BP needs to understand how the company’s name is impacting its respective audiences. There needs to be extensive analysis of the benefits of a name change to stakeholders,” according to Brian Ellis, CRT/tanaka executive vice president and leader of the agency’s crisis consultancy. “Even if the company decides to change its name, to suddenly think that the public isn’t smart enough to realize what they’re doing is preposterous.”

Consider one group of stakeholders – BP gas station owners – and how they have been impacted by the tragedy. They’re now saddled with the shattered BP image, which has led some consumers to boycott their stations. It’s worth noting that BP owns just a fraction of the more than 11,000 stations across the country that sell its fuel. Most BP-branded stations are locally owned and operated. News reports indicate that station owners are divided over whether a new name is warranted.

Some favor a return to using the name Amoco (which once stood for American Oil Co.) or some other name as part of reputation-building measures. Others say tampering with the already tattered company image would be risky, given all the marketing dollars already spent by BP during its environmentally friendly marketing campaign, in which it declared that BP stood for “Beyond Petroleum.”

Jamey Boiter of Fast Company takes the idea of a new image for BP a step further by suggesting that not only should the company change its name to Amoco, it should also change its primary color from green to blue.

“[BP has] tainted the color green now so it is meaningless. For some time, design experts (and environmentalists) have been asking green clients and consumers to consider alternatives for the overused color,” Boiter writes, suggesting blue instead. “Blue is the new green. Blue is sincere. Blue is honest. Blue is calming. Blue is American. Blue is the Gulf (or it will be again someday).” 

Although it’s interesting to speculate about whether a new name or even a new color for BP is warranted, don’t expect a new BP identity any time soon. Time would be better spent continuing to clean up the mess in the Gulf and making sure residents and businesses get back to achieving some level of normalcy as quickly as possible. Then, and only then, will it be time to consider whether the BP name is worth salvaging.

BP is not alone. Other companies have changed their names amid crises. Here is a brief look at three.

Valujet to AirTran. Probably one of the most memorable corporate name changes in recent memory is the discount airline carrier’s switch from Valujet to AirTran following the 1996 crash in which a DC-9 carrying 110 people plummeted into the Florida Everglades. There were no survivors. Time magazine contends that even by the standards of plane crashes, the Valujet crash was a grisly tragedy. “In a corporate disappearing act, the troubled airline bought a smaller rival and adopted its name, becoming AirTran Airways. Overnight, ValuJet shed its sketchy reputation and vaguely unsettling name, which suggested the company might be willing to cut a few corners in order to save a buck,” according to Time.

Blackwater to Xe. A more recent example of the corporate “name change game” is Xe (pronounced Zee). Readers may be more familiar with the company as private-security firm Blackwater. The name change was announced in February 2009 in an attempt to distance the company from the incident in which five of its guards were indicted on charges stemming from a 2007 shooting that left 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians dead. But with a new name comes old problems. Just this week, Xe agreed to pay $42 million in fines to settle alleged export violations between 2003 and 2009.

Anderson Consulting to Accenture. This name change actually didn’t occur amid a scandal, but right before one. However, the change is regarded by many marketing insiders as one of the worst corporate name changes in history. Andersen Consulting originated as the business and technology consulting division of accounting firm Arthur Andersen. When the consulting arm split from the Andersen accounting group in 2000, Andersen Consulting was forced to change its name. An internal competition yielded the name Accenture derived from the phrase “accent on the future,” which was adopted in 2001. The name change cost Accenture an estimated $100 million, and while it was blasted as generic “corporate speak,” it turned out to be a blessing in disguise, when the now infamous Enron scandal escalated later that year, irreversibly tarnishing the Arthur Andersen name.

What other memorable or notorious corporate name changes have occurred during difficult times?