In HK MTR can get away with calling themselves MTR (or really they are called “Gang Tie” which changed from “Di Tie” when they merged with KCR, but that’s another story) and NOT using a system wide name – because their reputation is so good. And its basically the same name since 1980.

Melbourne had system wide branding with the Met, but it’s downhill from there. No-one wants to return to the Met given the problems the Cain government had; but nothing inherently wrong with the name, very memorable.

Moral of the story: Have a good reputation, don’t need to change the name.

As for the Melbourne bus network, I agree that they all need a common livery. As a visitor, I found it really confusing trying to determine what was a Metlink bus and what was a charter bus!

I like the way things are done in Perth – all buses are either white and green or silver and green, and Transperth branding is dominant – the only mention of the operator is a message ‘This service is proudly operated by xxx’. Similar liveries also apply to the B-Series trains (~2004) and the ferries, while the A-Series trains still have some patches of red remaining from when they were introduced. In fact, TP hardly ever mention the actual operators of the service, marketing the whole thing as one integrated network.

Again, with the ticketing, I like the way it’s done in Perth – with regular tickets just being referred to as 1 Zone – 9 Zone or 2 Sections, and the value tickets being xxxRider (SmartRider, DayRider, FamilyRider and formally MultiRider). And bus travel in the CBD is free. Adelaide make it a bit misleading as the ‘Zone’ ticket implies that there are zones when there aren’t, and the eastern states systems have all managed to get some kind of a ticketing system brand that is maligned by many users – Go Card, myki or (shudder) T-Card.

That said, TP isn’t quite perfect – the bus network is horribly infrequent in many areas, especially on Sunday, and there isn’t a ‘true’ all day ticket on weekdays (DayRider is only after morning peak a la Sydney Off-peak return). But at least they get there marketing (largely) right.

not sure if it will extend to Trams.

I agree iwth comments in the article that the logical choice would be Metlink as it is already a brand that a lot of people would have heard of and recognise through metlinkmelbourne.com.au, batbygopstopl, the flags at bus/tram/train stops/stations and other adds they’ve run.

I wonder where Phin has disappeared to – haven’t seen him around here for a while . Come back Phin!

This is common in business.

Qantas owned Jetset tours yet you wouldn’t expect Jetset to be renamed Qantas (there was also a separate Qantas travel company).

These familiar with the Japanese Hotel chain Nikko and who speak Japanese would realise that Nikko in this case is the first and third Chinese characters of the name Japan Airlines (JAL). The chain is of course owned by JAL and cross-promote each other; yet there is some mystique in calling the hotels Nikko rather than JAL hotels. The other airline, ANA, calls the hotels ANA as well. So you can cross-brand, or not.

Accor is also famous for this. Mercure, Ibis, Sofitel, Formule-1 etc, all the same company. They use the different brands to pitch a different value propostion to the different markets without making very serious changes to the way they are managed.

London Transport had the potential to be a good umbrella name to demonstrate its rail operations were not part of BR, but at the end of the day the Tube remained the Tube or at best the Underground, I never heard anyone saying “I’m catching the London Transport train home”

I might do a post on a potential branding scheme for Australia.

Loose Shunter,
The Canberra system is very simple. With one exception, within the ACT there is one mode and one operator – ACTION Buses. The branding is consistent and well recognised (even though the service – or lack thereof – is often maligned by the travelling public). The exception is the Airliner shuttle bus which serves the airport and is operated by Deane’s bus lines and is not integrated into the ACTION network (partly for political reasons). There are a few services which operate across the border into Queanbeyan, Yass etc. These aren’t integrated and have separate branding.

Riccardo,
While very few buses appeared in Met livery (some did), as I recall most (many?), bus stops wore the older Met branding (the rounded triangle swirl) and you may recall buses appeared in the Met’s TV ads (Get the Met to get around, get the Met all over town, get the Met forget the car, get the Met). It certainly wasn’t fully integrated branding by any stretch, but it had the potential. But I agree, I never looked upon the private buses as ‘really’ being part of the Met.

On the other point about common names – it perhaps doesn’t hurt if different modes have different names, but the network overall benefits from a common identity. This can be in the form of common logos different colours as Phin suggests, or common symbols (as with London’s underground, DLR, busses), or simply with an overarching brand – as in the Met. I believe there would be scope to accommodate specific services/names/products such as ‘Light Metro’, or ‘DART’, or Oyster/Miki under a common brand.

All of the underground railway brands overseas apply to only that mode.

London Transport tried using a combined name for Underground and buses, I suppose it caught on at bureaucratic levels but I doubt the public thought much of it.

When I used to think of the “Met” I recall the trains and maybe the trams but the buses weren’t the top of my recall – despite the token sticker it was obvious they were all still private companies who took govt subsidies.

Maybe the workable delineation is like in HK – different brand names for each mode, but a workable brand name for the ticket system that crosses all.

Hence you end up with MTR, formerly the KCR, the island Tram, the Sunba and Gauba and so on, all taking the Octopus ticket.

I think Yarra trams is a bit duff. What the fruit does “Yarra” trams mean? Apart from the river name the connection to Melbourne is a bit ordinary. Melbourne just has trams; nothing more needs to be said. Something vanilla like the Melbourne Tramway Company would have done just fine.