Go figure: In the world of mergers and acquisitions, stock valuation is one thing; brand equity is another.

The hostile takeover of Disney by Comcast could result in one of the world's largest media conglomerates. While the stock market tries to make sense of this proposed merger, branding pundits and big name comics are speculating in The New York Times about the potential marriage of these brands -- suggesting new names like Versacorp or Pixaren't.

Corporate mergers and acquisitions create more naming challenges than a San Francisco wedding. Let's not hear of Comcast Disney, or Disney.comcast.com. After the corporate marriage difficulties and recent separation of AOL and Time Warner brands, customer-focused branding just might prevail over corporate megalomania in a Comcast takeover of Disney. But it's not that easy. Disney brings a dysfunctional family of great individual brands to Comcast, a name that sucks, itself.

In branding theory and practise, there are strong case studies to support different approaches to brand management of multi-brands by mega-corporations. Many success stories can be studied from the Procter & Gamble family of individual product brands. Sony is the classic example of successful branding under a single corporate name. There are many others. In an article titled "Company Brand vs. Individual Brand: Which Way to Go?" published by Business Know-How, the arguments pro and con are outlined:

The practice of keeping a multitude of individual brands, as well as sticking to the company brand to identify products of diverse range of categories, have long defined branding strategies in marketing history. Each comes with its own advantages and drawbacks, spurred primarily by nature of business, social and economic environment, and consumer perceptions

Disney is one of the greatest brands ever, but in recent years the name of the founder has been misdirected toward share value for stockholders rather than brand value for customers. Disney should stick to its core brand value proposition. Walt Disney didn't conceive the company to be a great investment opportunity for the street. Comcast should be the name of the publicly traded corporate parent. But, it's not the best possible name for its own consumer-oriented business. The cable business now marketed under the Comcast name should be rebranded for consumer consumption as Go, using Disney's Go.com Internet property, which has been ineffectively positioned by corporate Disney as an umbrella brand. That positioning has never worked well for Disney, Go, or the sheltered individual brands. All the brands currently in the Go Network: ABC, ESPN, Family Fun and Movies.com, along with Touchstone and Miramax, should be reorganized as differentiated brands under the corporate structure of Comcast. Go figure.

The name Comcast has never been a world-class brand, but if they pull off this hostile takeover of Disney, Wall Street will love Comcast. Comcast will have a new brand equity on the street, where the customer is the stock investor. To give the lackluster Comcast name a personality that typical Wall Street investors can connect with emotionally, the company might have a new mascot designed by Disney animators: Gordon the Gecko.