Ok... first they had Monday, which died on Tuesday.Now, it's Strategy&!!!Maybe I'm not clever enough to understand the name choice... but how did they sign off on that name?PwC renames Booz & Co to Strategy& on acquisition.

Booz has always had interesting things in its name, first it was the little dot thing Booz.Allen.Hamilton (but higher up than a full stop) then they went for the bars Booz | Allen | Hamilton then it was that chunky font with a big & sign Booz & Co now it's similar in so far as they have retained the statement of the & signI guess what they're saying is that they do strategy and (&) more... ie implementation now hence more cross selling with the PWC bitI'm sure the booz bit will do just fine, they're bright guys and gals. I'd be interested to see if they still have the allure and prestige in the eyes of new recruits, I'm sure that actually it will be a better place overall (more work, better work and so on) but is the "kind" of person who wants to go into top-tier MC likely to be put off by it now being the strategic consultancy bit of a Big 4? In other words is the prestige of MBBB now MBBS or does it just drop off to MBB? Fascinating stuff. Either way I am sure they hae done the right thing for the company

I'm still to be convinced Bushy. Take a look at the PRTM acquisition for example. Some time later both parties were still wrestling with the issues of how to maintain the high price models of the PRTM work when clients perceived they should be paying PwC prices. It also made recruitment harder as potential hires who would have perceived PRTM to be scm leaders, were confused by the poorly stratified relationships between the PRTM business and PwC. So throw in Diamond into that mix - weren't they meant to be the strategy business? So where does Booz sit now? Strategy & ...implementation? Hardly a breakthrough seller, and MBB have been busily moving downstream into ops for some years anyway. Well MB anyway.Methinks this is PwC paying for a rolodex and a few big names, but the Booz part will disintegrate.

Very good points, it will be interesting to see in particular whether the price premium will still be there or whether there will be a move to lower rates but bigger projects. I agree about the "what follows the &" question... it leaves it to the reader to decide. "Strategy & what"... "strategy & implementation?" If so, then why not say that? Or could there be things other than implementation that follow the "&" bit, and if so then what are they? Fascinating stuff.

I've never been a huge fan of PwC's branding to be honest. The fonts, the colours, the logos always seem like the homework study of an MS Word 98 computer design class...However brand considerations aside - I'm not convinced at just how "implementable" those strategies will be. They are almost finding themselves with the same span of influence as Accenture after their latest re-branding, but further up the value chain. They have the pure strategic capabilities, but when it comes to possible large-scale implementations, they are simply unable to complete at the same level, not withstanding the possibility of conflicts of interest between ongoing audits / risk management and more bullish strategy advice. It seems that this conflict will always be there. Accenture on the other hand are seeking to re-define the interlink between Strategy and Technology - and this could be ultimately be a highly successful strategy.So I wonder how PwC will sustain a relatively high-margin, low volume business without long-run talent seepage - I wonder how they will integrate Strategy& in a non-cannabilization business model and how they will leverage Strategy& for mid-margin, high volume...Which I think begs the question - wherever pure Strategy firms go - is the future of their work especially in large organizations marching proudly and unstoppably towards an integrated, commodotized and massive projects?

Strategy&'s first and most important client will be ... PwC.Strat houses are intentionally self commoditising - I just don't think the work is there anymore, not in mature markets anyway. Yes weve seen Monitor go to Deloitte, now Booz go to PwC. And EY and KPMG making no moves to keep up, suggesting that the writing is on the wall for the Big 4 model (which is was anyway from a regulatory point of view) from a commercial pov. But looks a little more broadly and we see... OW making moves to acquire AlixPartners (failed), attempts by Deloitte to acquire Roland Berger...McKinsey has gone all ops lately, probably because no one is buying their strat work, BCG is quietely diversifying but under different brand names, but increasingly looking like they are waiting for Godot, Bain..well consulting has always been the commoditised business for them anyway, Bain Cap is the real business.Deloitte wanted to be Accenture, but then decided to outmanoeuvre them by positioning to being Omni-consulting. PwC is following suit. What I think we will see IS a new model of consulting - but one which is coming and no one really knows what it will look like or how it will operate in 5 years time. Something akin to the banking 'Bulge Bracket'. We have had universal banks, now we will get universal consulting with disproportionate influence on clients and able, actually, so raise cost models, not flatten them.

Mars - you paint a deeply disturbing picture of a dystopian future as a Consultant. It's like Kafka meets James meets Takami. It's Caesar's Column for the thinking man...I'm both scared for my family's lives and excited by the prospect of promotion in equal measure...

Arby I don't think this vision is dystopian - just a maturation of the consolidation which has been in a trend in the industry for some time. Lets keep in mind that we continue to see new boutiques and midcaps springing up, and there are still plenty of strong independents out there appealing to experienced hires.

Intriguing... I would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

Me too, I would love to read books and blogs written by all of you lot on here! :)

Just a an aside. I'm trying to tune into Sky News and instead I seem to be irrevocably tuned to Sky "Peaches Geldof"....

Guys - thanks for the comments. I think Strategy& (formerly known as Booz & Co) will survive but that name will surely make some clients consider alternatives.I agree with pretty much all the comments here including, sadly, the Sky "Peeches Geldof" one. It is sad that she is dead but these days the media's coverage of tragic events especially high profile micro events is simply over the top.

[quote]Just a an aside. I'm trying to tune into Sky News and instead I seem to be irrevocably tuned to Sky "Peaches Geldof"....[/quote]The only thing to do in my small provincial Hilton is watch the news but this is getting silly!As one partner told me when I joined "we do difficult things, for difficult clients in unpleasant places" - how very true today!

+1 PB

Very interesting points being raised here (and wonderfully worded) :)The name and future strategy aside, it will be interesting to see how well the acquisition goes culturally speaking... always a challenge when you get the "top of the bill / high maintenance" strat guys being taken over by a larger, so-to-speak cheaper firm.

Booz Partner meets PwC Partner for first time.Your skits please...

Now that would be very interesting indeed.Who earns more anyway, a booz partner or a pwc partner? Clearly booz is seen by many as more "prestigious" (as evidenced by the innumerable number of people constantly wanting to "get into" strategy consulting)... however money does talk and I wonder if the pwc ones earn more (if only because of their size)? Now that would make for a very interesting dynamic indeed. I'm obviously massivly exaggerating and creating a bit of a cartoon here, but I have an image in my head of it being like a top-tier, highly intellectual professor of a major academic institution suddenly being trumped in the salary stakes by an east-end barrow boy... ie sort of difficult on the ego perhaps. Assuming that's actually the case which it's entirely possible it's not!I guess the thing to remember is the both parties voted for this so I would assume are going into it with a positive attitude and aspirations

Some potential flash points in there Bushy - the much narrower business lines of strat and the frankly smaller comp bucket shared by strat partners v the pyramid revenue machine underneath a PwC partner. Guess the biggest issue will be for Booz partners coming in and having to build out revenue streams which are matrixed relationships across multiple practice areas, rather than the linear strat approach. Maybe they have a guarantee for a period to get them over the hump.