Booz, PwC, and "Strategy&"

As a former PwCer I am just shaking my head. Monday was an ongoing joke around the office for several years, as in: "Where should we go to lunch? Lets ask the folks at Monday."

Merger is a good move, branding is not.

Imagine you're at a conference, sharply dressed guy comes up to you, you shake hands and he says "Hi, i'm Bob from Strategy and...", being a polite individual, you wait for him to finish his sentence, then eventually say "and what?" then the poor sod has to go over an embarrassing explanation of the name which he has repeated to every other person he's trying to network with.

Just seems an odd decision to me, they're trying too hard to be "edgy".

oh god this is fucking abysmal. I both feel terrible for my friends at legacy booz and actually laugh out loud at the thought of someone putting "strategy&" on their resume after having been at a respectable strat house.

I guess that this problem will happen just for the first months. After an year, everyone and his mother will know about this new shitty name;

This makes Monitor Deloitte look like something Jony Ive designed.

I know this is going to sound like a GOML statement, but you can't just take a firm with a proud tradition and give it a cutesy name and expect to continue to be taken seriously.

"Strategy&" as a brand would be cool if it was a little startup company with ping-pong tables in the break room and beanbag chairs in the conference room. I asked a couple of people here in the office what kind of company they thought it was and they each said, "A startup" with no hesitation. (Obviously this is just anecdotal.)

As @"AfricanFarmer" said above the branding is off. I just can't imagine a 58 year old partner walking around and telling people he is a partner at Strategy&. It just doesn't fit.

Maybe PwC is just doing some epic April Fools trolling?

It's also clear that they were staring directly at Deloitte Strategy & Operations when they created this shitshow of a name...get it together PwC. This is truly an embarrassment.

At the MBA level, Monitor is rolled into Deloitte when it comes to recruiting, but that's possibly because only S&O recruits at the MBA level, rather than the entirety of the Deloitte organization, which I assume might be the case at the undergrad level.

My goodness. I missed this - that is truly awful.

Worst.Name.Ever! Actually, coming from a different tier 2 consulting firm that the media hasn't shown too much love to lately, I'm quite happy about this...

The name is an embarrassment. 'PwC Consulting' should've been fine. Or they could've just kept 'Booz & Co.' atleast for another few years untill people have more confidence in the PwC ownership.

Full disclosure, I am PwC. As for the brand name, I don't know if it was a play on Strategy+Business, while trying to keep some of the old Booz design, but I'm pretty indifferent about it. What matters more is how the firm will run.

I think most people probably know that the concept is to operate from corporate strategy through implementation. It is no secret that the market seems to be moving this way with Deloitte moving up the "chain" and McKinsey moving down (McKinsey Implementation, McKinsey Solutions etc.). BCG themselves noted in an internal memo posted here (about the Booz/PwC merger) discussed their growth areas (change management...a very implementation related offering).

As for how it operates the biggest focus is on aligning our values. Great consulting firms respect their clients, and do whatever it takes to serve them best. There is a lot of pressure to make sure both Booz and PwC staff recognize this, as well as the differences that make each good at what they do. Doing implementation well is different from doing strategy well. This can mean taking different approaches to projects.

Booz is generally going to continue to operate business as usual, with the exception that when partners agree there is a benefit for a blended team, or when there will be handoffs, these cases will be discussed and planned for. This allows the very agile approach of Booz to Strategy to remain.

Not frequently mentioned is what will begin to happen in Operations (Operations Strategy /whatever you'd like to call it). Contrary to the belief of many on the board, the "Big 4" are pretty strong in some of these areas (often depending on the country and function). This is where I think there will be more blending between PwC and Booz (as well as former Diamond and PRTM teams / intellectual property). And lastly for pure implementation work, I doubt there will be much integration.

Internally we have strict directions on how we will work together "officially on projects" - but it basically boils down to building the best team for the client. That is decided between partners with the relationships, partners with the skills needed by the client, and how they agree to best to meet the clients needs. Unofficially, in general knowledge bases they are now integrated and will be working on combining the best of PwC (inc. PRTM/Diamond) with Booz's IP and methods.

TT

Strategy&, Strategy&, Strategy&... Smoking the reefer.

Even with the awful name, it'll be interesting to see how PwC can integrate them successfully. I've heard Deloitte leverages Monitor VERY well, leading to new markets they otherwise wouldn't be in.

Anyone know if there has been an exodus of former Booz employees post-acquisition? I heard a lot of them were unhappy, but unsure how many did something about it and left.

~15% of partners left

less staff

biggest exit was McK

There wasn't as much turnover as people think. Obviously PwC wouldn't have done this if they knew all the Booz partners were going to walk and take their books with them.

@"TylerT" For the record, I wasn't knocking the strategy. I'm at PwC as well and I think it is a great move for both firms.

@TylerT Good post. Thanks for the insight. I just don't like the name, but who really gives a shit about a name. Execution is obviously more important. I am assuming that Strategy& will recruit seperately (and at different schools) from PwC Advisory/Consulting - do you think that's correct?

Booz used to be a nice strategy option for those that missed out on MBB. Hoping it can remain that way.

the only ppl on here defending the joke seem to be PwC people. Booz guys are too embarrassed to contribute.

yeah have to get back to school now that booz has no future..wudnt want to end up being sullied by PwC accountants..

@"BGP2587" For the next year or so, Strategy& will generally be running as they have in the past, so I imagine this means recruiting and development. This is with the exception of meeting PwC's compliance requirements for audit clients. This is a bit more bureaucracy for them then they are likely use to, however there is also a effort to put them in front of clients that they haven't had exposure to them in the past.

I have no doubts some have left, and if they disagreed with the changes that is fine. Obviously a large number of experienced Booz partners felt this would work, and believe they can combine the two firms to make a more attractive firm overall. I'm not a partner, or even an experienced enough consultant to make a call on a merger like this - but my rule of thumb is if people far smarter and more experienced then me think it is a good idea, who am I to judge.

@"entropy_increases" I'm not trying to defend PwC/Booz & Co Merger, so I am sorry if it comes across like that. I was trying to clear up some information on how both firms expect to work together to serve clients. Honestly, this is probably a "blow" to the prestige of those working at Booz, although there are areas in Operations where PwC is actually ranked above Booz & Co, so there are some benefits to Booz.

Ultimately, as long as the clients and consultants are happy then it should be good. The PRTM team members I've worked with liked working with me, and wanted me to join their team. I doubt I'm that uncommon, and I'm certainly not our best consultant so I have no doubt there are PwC people that will integrate well with Booz, and that Booz consultants will be professional and help support PwC on blended projects.

TT

They really couldn't have just named it PwC Strategy?...How hard would that have been?

Hence, Strategy&. Now it makes sense.

As a fomer Booz (and now Strategy&) Operations consultant, I think the biggest risk to this merger (and any merger) is culture clash. As legacy PwC consultants become aware that Strategy& staff are paid more and have better policies / benefits (not to mention MS Outlook), what will the reaction be? Will there be resentment on cross-staffed client teams?

Partner attrition has been ~10%, those at the lower ranks (who must depend on the firm brand more) are leaving at a higher rate. Personally 50% of juniors I know have either left or are actively looking to leave. Bonuses are paid in July, I expect you'll see another wave of attrition then.

I would've preferred PwC & Company.

To put things in perspective, this Strategy& could only exists for 2-3 years until Booz is fully integrated with PwC. They did the same with Diamond - where they came up with a PwC/Diamond name to distinguish themselves for a few years, until they were fully integrated, and now there is no distinguishing name.

As FormerHedgeFundie pointed out, culture will be the biggest issue, which I am sure everyone knows. It will be awkward to move from a 3K person firm to a 180K person firm, and all the regulations/compliance requirements that are included; not to mention the fact that we run on Lotus Notes still...

Well - I'm at McKinsey, and we also run on Lotus Notes... ;)

Reviving this thread, how well/bad do you guys think is doing S& now?, at least in my country PwC is fully merging and dilluting S&. Some very talented consultants have gone, specially a principal I personally met on my stance there ,has signed with BCG.

Furthermore, the recruitment process (I do not know if this is globally the case or is just happening in the local branch of my country) is carried out by PwC, and turning it around into something less selective.

The company is in fact still leaking partners to competitors (Carlos Ammann, head of operations in Switzerland left last fall and there are more to come). Best talents (Principals and Partners) are going to competitors (MBB) and they are being replaced by poached people from Tier-3 companies (IBM, Accenture, Capgemini Consulting) at least on the smaller offices. Major problems with 1) staffing and the 2) compliance rules:

1) Booz was international organisation with country divisions, which allowed real international staffing and getting the best people from around the world to the projects. PwC (Strategy&) is a network of independent companies, where all countries "sort of" licence the brand and have their national P/L - no real incentives for international staffing and Partners rather try to staff people from their own country to get the money stay there - works fine if you have the real experts in your country organisation (UK, Germany), but in smaller country organisations, such as the Nordics, they often rather staff domestic PwC "Experts" to the projects than use the real experts from the network ('cause it's more expensive). Clients are starting to see the BS and the rates are now >20% lower than before.

2) Compliance - Many clients have problems hiring S& for projects where PwC is the auditor. It's not only the Sarbanes-Oxley-kind of legal problem - they are sometimes overly careful and don't want to get involved. This has been a major impulse for many partners losing their key accounts: Now they are still more than happy to serve them, but on the competitors' ranks.

In Germany, the company is doing great - what I have heard. They have enough critical mass to provide experts from the country organisation to their projects. However, the brand has no legacy among students and Strategy& had to bump up the starting salaries for graduates there (80-85k€ fixed salary before bonuses for associates (old senior consultant role)) to be even somewhat interesting.

EDIT: Typos