What’s In a Name? A Cautionary Tale
- joseph2618
- Apr 1
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 30
Make brands stand out | Others say: ‘Creative | Innovative | Quick Study | Fresh Thinker | Holistic Strategist | Delivers
March 27, 2025
Peter Carl Faberge, royal jeweler to the Czars of Russia, produced some of the most intricate, beautiful, coveted works of art, jewelry and décor ever seen. In fact, his enamel technique has never been replicated (keep in mind, he died in 1920, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution). The royal works he made for Russia’s Imperial Family would not be valued the same. They were ignominiously stored in a warehouse among other valuable relics of Czarist Russia.
Fast forward many decades: the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever, through multiple acquisitions, bought the name Faberge. Then, like Halston’s backers, sought to commoditize it with brands like Brut by Faberge made famous commercials featuring NY Jets Quarterback Joe Namath among others; Jean Nate After Bath Splash. Even Faberge Organics hairspray (commercial featuring and early Heather Locklear).
In the late 90s, the incoming French CEO of Unilever’s American division sought to re-align the Faberge name with its luxury heritage.
Our research showed Americans held high Top of Mind awareness of the Faberge name and associated it with Eggs almost uniquely. But when asked to connect Faberge to a retail product, it was universally a low-end product, usually sold at drug stores. Meaning the high-luxury name was connected to a low-end FDM product.
To redress that association, we devised a bold strategy: Remind Americans that Faberge equals Luxury. How? Mount the first-ever Faberge In America museum exhibit.
It helped that there was a growing fascination with Russia at the time. A recently released book called The Romanovs charted the end of the Czarist era.
There was a Broadway show and a few made for TV movies about Anastasia, the Czar’s youngest daughter and her potential survival from execution. Spoiler alert – she was killed with her family.
Into this mix we injected Faberge. Assembling the collections from American collectors proved easier than imagined:
Malcom Forbes owned the largest collection of Faberge eggs outside of the motherland.
Marjorie Merriwether Post (Post Cereal Heiress and Dina Merrill’s mother) gathered her impressive collection by crawling around in the aforementioned warehouse in the 30s – purchasing priceless items for pennies.
Armand Hammer moved to the newly formed USSR in the 1920s to run an export business, became close to the new government and was bequeathed several Faberge items which began his collection.
John Traina, husband of Danielle Steele, owned more Faberge cigarette cases than anyone. Folklore held that English noblewomen would wait to order the season’s ball gown to see what color enamel Faberge was releasing that season. As Michael Kors would say “match-y match-y.”
Underwriting an exhibit of this scope was a large gamble and a bold move. The goal was to create such a pull around the Faberge name that the newly hired licensing firm would have an easy job RE-connecting it with luxury: tableware, jewelry, scarves & prints, etc. Unilever owned Parfums International, consequently the first item to ‘elevate’ the Faberge name was a fragrance. The $3,000/ounce perfume debuted at Bergdorf Goodman and was dressed in a crystal coffret reminiscent of the namesake egg.
We had the collections, but where to kick off this massive exhibit? We knocked on the door of the top museums in the country: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (twice); The Copper Hewitt; The Museum of Art & Design – you name it. No one, it seemed, wanted to play with us.
Enter Geza von Hapsburg; world’s foremost authority on Faberge and for those of you who remember history, yes, THAT von Hapsburg – whose great grandfather’s murder kicked-off World War I. Ahem.
It seems when Geza knocks, people listen. The Met said no twice. Geza sat with its leadership and discovered they were not impressed. They felt Faberge was too associated with Brut and other low-end products that no one would come to see the exhibit – and turnstile is all that matters to the Met. He persuaded them.
The media roll-out leading to opening day was a veritable roadblock – to be unaware of this exhibit you had to be living under a rock.
There are SO many stories to tell wrapped up in this one effort. It was such a stunning success. But in the end, it failed.
Failure
The New York Times ran a story at the end of the year that the Faberge Exhibit at the Met was THE cultural event of the year. What of those fears the Met leadership held? Our exhibit and the campaign surrounding it led to higher turnstile count than the original King Tut exhibit decades before – a long-held record.
Remember the licensing company was hired to reconnect Faberge with luxury brands. Seldom has a brand enjoyed the propulsion of a national touring museum exhibition; an A&E Biography (that I co-produced) and a tidal wave of media and promotion to fuel licensing deals.
They secured one.
By all accounts, we succeeded except where it mattered. We definitely turned the tide around the Faberge name (witness the latest incarnation out of the UK in the watch & jewelry space). I could name the licensing team, but I won’t.
The moral of this story is, pick your partners wisely. At LOCC, we see ourselves as wise partners to pick!
Epilogue: Much of what we learned about Russia went into the award-winning Smirnoff campaign that became a resounding success.
Check out our Linked in page for more marketing insights.
Comments