The vitriol that followed the rebranding of the Road Transport Forum in September did not come as a great surprise.

Neither did the reaction to the negative comments by some who fronted the change; their response most likely confirms the remarks made by many that the organisations representing the industry have lost touch with the membership they claim to represent.

Why you would want to change a brand name and its associated logo that has been around for 25 years and was readily identified within an industry is a mystery to me. But then I don’t have a degree in spin- doctoring either. Despite what the new name says, the road-freight industry does not transport New Zealand – that would be a task that would challenge even our most experienced heavy- haulage colleagues. Our industry moves the freight that keeps New Zealand alive, end of story.

Sure, the arteries we use to do this are in urgent need of major surgery before they collapse altogether, and saving them is beyond the skills of our most qualified engineers. But moving goods to keep New Zealand alive is what we do, and that’s the message we need to get out to the politicians and the country through clear representation.

When the Road Transport Forum was first established in 1997, the idea was to give the industry a single voice at a national level and give the media and the government one point of contact on issues affecting the industry. Before this, there were two industry organisations – the Road Transport Association and the Owner Carriers Association (OCANZ).

OCANZ itself represented two organisations that were primarily concerned with the owner-driver sector of the industry. These are now known as National Road Carriers and the New Zealand Trucking Association.

Has the idea behind the establishment of the RTF been realised? Well, we still have three industry associations and a national body so the answer is pretty clear to me. This is not to take away any credit for the work the forum has done on behalf of the industry since its inception, but one cannot help to wonder how much more effective it could have been if it were indeed a united voice.

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where slick marketing and fancy names have become more important than actions; we see this most days at 1pm.

For a long time, I have believed that when organisations feel the need to rebrand/rename, it is just an attempt to gloss over their shortcomings, a type of camouflage. Is the welfare of our children really better because Child, Youth and Family changed its name? Are we getting better service from the Transport Agency because it has changed its name? Is the CVIU more in tune with the industry since it became the CVST? Successful businesses do not see the need to rebrand/ rename themselves. They stick with what they have and what is recognised. Coca-Cola has been around since the late 1800s and is one of the world’s most recognisable brands.

McDonald’s has been in operation since 1955. Toyota started producing cars before World War II. Apple first appeared on the scene in 1976. Mainfreight also appeared around this time.

If you asked any of these companies if they feel the need to change their name to better reflect what they do, their reply would be very predictable. Although some answers may be polite and others may not be.

I would have thought that those who were responsible for deciding to rebrand the RTF would have known a simple truth: no matter how much you try to disguise them, you cannot sell rotten apples by calling them oranges. You have to chuck the rotten ones out and replace them with fresh ones.

Maybe this is the underlying problem with the forum – the rot has set in, but nobody has the intestinal fortitude to call in the vet and put it out of its misery.

The saying ‘Actions speak louder than words’ is reported to have come into use in the mid-1500s. Those responsible for the new organisation should remember this because it is ultimately what they achieve, not what they say they do, on which its members will judge success.