Last week it was reported that a letter found in Osama bin Laden’s compound after he was shot and killed shows that the terrorist leader was concerned that the power of the al-Qaeda “brand” was weakening. In the document, bin Laden focused primarily on the movement’s name, and suggested that something more religious was needed.
“Al Qaeda” is a shortened version of the movement’s actual name, “al-Qaeda al-Jihad,” which means The Base of Holy War. Bin Laden was concerned that the loss of the word “Jihad” had allowed the US and its allies “to claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam.” The names bin Laden suggested instead are not exactly catchy: “Taifat al-Tawhed Wal-Jihad”, meaning Monotheism and Jihad Group; or “Jama'at I'Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida,” meaning Restoration of the Caliphate Group.
It’s hard to imagine that a change of name would have made any difference to the al-Qaeda brand in the western world, inextricably linked as it is with terror, extremism and death. And there are strongly conflicting perceptions as to how the brand is doing in the Muslim world.
The Economist published an article about the weakening appeal of bin Laden’s brand very soon after his death. It argues that bin Laden’s adherence to violence does not appeal to the young Muslims taking part in the Arab spring -- people fighting for expanded human rights, not for a new jihad.
On the other hand, the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies has stated that “[d]espite extensive counterterrorism success against the group responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaeda ‘brand’ now resonates with an increasingly diverse (though still narrow) cross-section of Muslims around the world.” (Quoted in the Globe and Mail, May 16, 2011.)
It is a testament to the highly increased awareness of the concept of branding that it is being referred to by a strategic study group – not to mention that it was a concern of the leader of such an ardently anti-West movement. After all, branding, as an off-shoot of marketing, is one of the key tools of the capitalist machine.
In his last years Osama bin Laden lived in isolation from the Internet and other social media tools, and had become less and less of an integral part of the al-Qaeda brand. Now that he is dead, it remains to be seen what the brand will become. Will al-Qaeda change its name? And if it does, will this classic branding error – changing the name, but not actually changing the brand – weaken the organization’s appeal? And is it possible that our hopes for peace may rest in part on poor branding?