Should Infogrames really want to become Atari?

Should Infogrames really want to become Atari?

OPINION

Infogrames CEO David Gardner wants to change the name of his company to 'Atari'. Yet history tells us that anyone who has used that name before, has failed to turn it into a lasting success. Is the name cursed?

The Atari brand name has been in the hands of Infogrames for eight years now. I often wondered why Infogrames continued to operate under both names for all these years. Atari is a household brand name that's been around for 35 years. Infogrames on the other hand, never really managed to establish a foothold outside of Europe. The decision to acquire the Atari name was a masterful move by the company, instantly enabling it to distribute its games all over the world without having to build up its own name.

Yesterday Infogrames CEO David Gardner told GI that he has been considering finally ditching the Infogrames name and fully adopt the Atari name. His reasoning behind this move is clear. Both Infogrames and Atari are in trouble. They have been hemorrhaging money for years now and sold off many of their crown jewels (read: top intellectual properties) to other publishers to keep their head above water. To get back on track, David feels a change is necessary, saying:
"We like to think of Infogrames, instead of being the tired, old company, as the best-funded, best-branded, most energetic start-up in the history of computer gaming."
Fair enough, but… should they really? Infogrames isn't the first company to get in trouble while owning the Atari name. You would almost think that the name is cursed.

Should Infogrames really want to become Atari?
Atari was founded by Nolan Bushnell who invented the first Arcade game and, as a result, pretty much invented the gaming industry. After many successful years, Atari's golden age really started with the Atari 2600 that brought console gaming to the masses. They had a tremendous lead on their competitors and it is hard to understand how they lost it. Even today it puzzles me that we are not still mentioning them in the same breath as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft.

In the seventies Atari reigned supreme but their success was not to last. It came to an abrupt halt in 1983 when then owner Warner reported a loss of over 500 million, almost entirely due to its video game division. From that moment on, Atari started dying a slow, quiet and painful death that ended somewhere in the mid-nineties. During this period the company had at least five different CEO's and changed hands to different owners almost as often. None of these owners were able to breathe life into the legendary name and all gave up after seeing their investments go up in smoke.

Eventually the Atari name and all of its properties landed in the hands of board games maker Hasbro. Hasbro was really only interested in the huge library of intellectual properties that came with the brand name but did at some point attempt to resurrect Atari as a company. Their hope to bring some of Atari's more famous franchises back to life failed miserably. They should never have bothered. The dusty corporate Hasbro culture didn't fit the wild and crazy world of gaming.

Should Infogrames really want to become Atari?
In December 2000, less than 2 years after gaining control of the Atari name, Hasbro realized that they had botched things up badly. They'd lost a considerable amount of money and the best thing they could come up with was wrapping up the Atari name along with all its properties and shipping it over to France. The unwrapping was done by eager Infogrames execs that must have had the best Christmas ever.

The rest is history. The name did indeed mean an instant foothold in the US and many other countries, allowing a level of market penetration that Infogrames had only ever dreamed of. But much like the original Atari company, the success was not to last. Profits turned into losses and I can't recall the last time I have seen any positive news from the company.

So, I have to ask… is David Gardner a visionary, correct in thinking that dropping the Infogrames name is a key factor to bring his company back into the black? Or is he simply tempting fate by donning the Atari name, knowing full well that anyone who tried before ultimately failed to keep their company afloat?