Re-branding is always a tricky business and especially when you have such a well-known and beloved brand as Coach. The strategic rationale to change the master brand to a new, more inclusive moniker is reasonable, but perhaps management could have launched the brand change in a way that was more subtle and evolving in order to minimize concerns from Coach aficionados.

Let’s see. To start with there is a brand name of leather goods that is known across the world. That brand purchased other high-end brands with similar items to those that they sell. Now they think it’s a good idea to change the name to one that refers to a thick textile fabric with pictures or designs used as a wall hanging or furniture covering? I don’t think so.

These are highly impactful marketing decisions. All three brands; Coach, Stuart Weitzman and Kate Spade are well known and followed in their own right. Why mess with that and confuse all three constituencies?

Changing the Coach corporate name to Tapestry has created more confusion than clarity. While it’s clear that Coach, Inc. has to come up with a strategy to move to more of a multi-brand conglomerate, the Coach name is extremely valuable from a brand recognition perspective.

Historically, companies have faced challenges when they have to explain the re-branding and name changes. It’s challenging to find a name that keeps the integrity of the original parent brand yet makes a statement for the road ahead, especially when the company is undergoing a transformation.

Lets see how things progress as Coach expands their acquisition strategies.

Far too late in the game for a name change. It would have made more sense to keep the Coach name for their leather goods line and used “Tapestry” to represent the multi-brand conglomerate.

Without the name “Coach” they lose their brand history and, with that, they lose what makes their leather goods line stand out from the competition.

I understand the concerns about a potential loss of focus. However, by itself a corporate name change need not have any impact on its flagship brands. Consumers can still shop in a Coach or Kate Spade retailer.

The bigger question is, what new fabrics will be woven into the company’s tapestry?

This is a change of corporate name, not of the name consumers will see on storefronts or products — those will remain just as they are.

The move is largely sensible as the corporate entity comprises more than just Coach and will likely become larger still over time.

There’s nothing wrong with Coach becoming a house of brands, just so long as it nurtures each brand and gives each the space it needs to grow.

This is s tough one. I hope that they did the due diligence to ensure that it was the right move–it’s like Burberry changing their name. All of their new sub-brands have legacy and Coach has both positive and negative legacy–but it’s global. Their brand has certainly been frenetic in style, target market and price point. Perhaps this is their first step towards redefining who they are going to be and sticking to it.

They made a good decision changing the corporate name. Legacy names around brands run into problems. The Disney “corporation” has hurt the Disney family entertainment name by releasing movies that violate the family sensibility yet come under a “Disney” name.

The problem here is that Coach botched the announcement — leading most headlines to suggest the Coach product/store brand was changing to “Tapestry.” This change should have been discussed only with a Wall Street investor/retail buyer audience.

The right execution could have made that happen.

When I first read about the name change I was confused as to what it meant in relation to the Coach brand. It is now a week later and I am still not clear. Hopefully the women who shop these brands will know and continue to purchase from them. I for one don’t get the purpose from a sales and marketing point of view.

Coach is one of the very few brands successful in reinventing themselves to a new generation back in the late ’80s. A feat for sure! Coach does have an emotional connection with consumers. Over the decades, Coach has become shorthand for products consumers can count on to be authentic, good quality with a bit of cachet.

Why replace a powerful brand with a word that means, “a piece of thick textile fabric with pictures or designs formed by weaving colored weft threads or by embroidering on canvas, used as a wall hanging or furniture covering”?

I don’t have a problem with the name change because it is aimed at the investment community — not at consumers of the company’s multiple brands. Coach is still Coach as far as the customer is concerned, and likewise with Kate Spade. The new name suggests to investors that Tapestry is literally “more than Coach,” especially if it has more brand acquisitions in the future. Google’s decision to rename its parent company as “Alphabet” was a similar move that didn’t dilute the strength of the Google brand at all.

If Coach continues to market its leather goods and related accessories with the Coach name intact, then I see no downside to the corporate name changes. There will be no change for consumers to see and therefore no particular impact. Retailers and other business partners have to be assured that Tapestry will maintain positive relationships it has established and improve sales for all the brands in the conglomerate. Changing the corporate identity to Tapestry opens the way to consolidation of in-house operations and perhaps greater profitability overall.

Given the apparent widespread confusion over the name change (the Coach brand remains Coach — it is the parent company changing names to Tapestry), this appears to be a lesson on the importance of communicating a parent company name change to all important stakeholders. Clearly stating the change doesn’t affect the consumer-facing Coach brand. Otherwise, as has been the case here, the media and consumers become unnecessarily confused, leading to an unintended dilution of the Coach retail and merchandise brand equity.

Any time there is a merger or acquisition a name change is always in the cards and for some companies it makes sense and for others, it’s just to make the new marketing exec feel like they made an impact.

For Coach, I think this makes sense as the fashion industry is not what it used to be. If you get a second, check out “How Luxury Lost Its Luster” and you’ll see what I mean. Also with the new generation entering the workforce and their need for brands that are responsible (Toms), sustainable (Patagonia), and convenient (Bombfell) why not start something new and start fresh?