5 ms·

Brands are aimed at demographics, which is why Unilever has the Dove brand and the Lynx brand for basically the same product for example. People identify with a

by hartror 16y ago

Brands are aimed at demographics, which is why Unilever has the Dove brand and the Lynx brand for basically the same product for example. People identify with a brand, have a perception and make purchasing decisions based on it. What Joel's point is, I believe, is that generic umbrella series/brands are bad for user/customer perception (such as his "For Dummies" example). And as the entire Stack Exchange ecosystem is going to cover a massive range of topics it makes more sense to separate them as the good perception of a Stack Exchange cooking site isn't going to help the perception of a Stack Exchange mechanics site.

fragmede 16y ago
I can kinda see Joel's point, but it runs counter to the whole notion of branding. Cooking may seem to have little to do with mechanics, but a QA website about cooking vs. a QA website about mechanics has, well, the QA website part in common. That's not to say I'd put up with crap on a mechanic's QA site even if the cooking QA site was good, but previous experience with Google search absolutely helped sell the Gmail switch.
JadeNB 16y ago
> What Joel's point is, I believe, is that generic umbrella series/brands are bad for user/customer perception (such as his "For Dummies" example). I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a bad umbrella brand, just that there is such a thing as a good umbrella brand (at least for me). Springer (which also covers a massive range of topics!), and possibly also O'Reilly, are examples of umbrella brands that I perceive as good. In fact, I can think of far more good umbrella brands than bad ones for books; as a bibliophile, I rely on my knowledge that I can trust certain publishers for quality, format, content, &c. to help me make my buying decisions quickly. I can't think of many examples of good or bad brands for websites—except CPAN and its derivatives, which are (again, to me) a very good umbrella brand indeed. (I can think of CTAN and JSAN right off the top of my head; I'm sure that there are others.)

by hartror 16y ago

fragmede 16y ago

I can kinda see Joel's point, but it runs counter to the whole notion of branding. Cooking may seem to have little to do with mechanics, but a QA website about cooking vs. a QA website about mechanics has, well, the QA website part in common. That's not to say I'd put up with crap on a mechanic's QA site even if the cooking QA site was good, but previous experience with Google search absolutely helped sell the Gmail switch.

JadeNB 16y ago

> What Joel's point is, I believe, is that generic umbrella series/brands are bad for user/customer perception (such as his "For Dummies" example). I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a bad umbrella brand, just that there is such a thing as a good umbrella brand (at least for me). Springer (which also covers a massive range of topics!), and possibly also O'Reilly, are examples of umbrella brands that I perceive as good. In fact, I can think of far more good umbrella brands than bad ones for books; as a bibliophile, I rely on my knowledge that I can trust certain publishers for quality, format, content, &c. to help me make my buying decisions quickly. I can't think of many examples of good or bad brands for websites—except CPAN and its derivatives, which are (again, to me) a very good umbrella brand indeed. (I can think of CTAN and JSAN right off the top of my head; I'm sure that there are others.)