5 ms·

Brand confusion is never a good plan. Block, Meta, alphabet, who cares? It's Square, Facebook, and Google that are the big brands these companies have and that

Brand confusion is never a good plan. Block, Meta, alphabet, who cares? It's Square, Facebook, and Google that are the big brands these companies have and that they are known for with billions of people (well not Square probably). Only a fraction of those people would be able to name the parent companies. Facebook owns Whatsapp, and Instagram and a bunch of smaller stuff as well. But Meta is just not a great brand. It's a vague ambition at best. That's the problem with this rebranding. Google did it because they had a bunch of aimless acquisitions/spinoffs, none of which since managed to rival it's money maker Google, which continues to be the place that is associated with their successful stuff (Android, Youtube, ads, etc.). Facebook is doing it because their Facebook brand is imploding due to years of mismanagement. It's a dead zone at this pont. I check in once a month and then leave in disgust. Absolutely nothing going on there whatsoever. Square on the other hand is a successful product. Nice growth. Nice brand. Worth going all in on. The stuff they acquired pales in comparison. Why mess with that brand, create confusion and awkwardness, etc.?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raverbashing 5y ago
I agree. Branding changes "for nothing" help nothing. But the worse contender seems to be Transferwise who changed their name to Wise, losing the recognition and the brand specificity. Oblig. "Yeah that wasn't a very wise choice."
lordnacho 5y ago
It's not just that it's confusing, it's misleading. Humans attach a lot of value to names of things. The whole history of a thing is keyed on its name, a fact that is especially pertinent in the internet era. If some brand has built up a bad rep, they shouldn't be allowed to change it just by renaming themselves. Likewise a firm that's built a good rep and wants to try something new in order to protect the brand shouldn't be allowed to either. I don't know whether the law could ever protect us from this, I suppose it's more the job of the media to keep remind us who Altria are, and where Lexus came from. A lot of brand shenanigans is basically abusing how humans associate history with names. Somehow it's never been an ethical issue to change brands, spawn a new brand, or buy another brand while hollowing out the product.
impulser_ 5y ago
It doesn't matter if they can't name the parent company. Most people using Cash App probably don't even know Square is the parent company lol. They don't care. Same with Tidal now. But Square is a branded platform by Square Inc. So is Cash App apart of the Seller's platform, named Square, or is it apart of Square Inc? This is why they separated. Square brand is now just the Square seller's platform.
tinyhouse 5y ago
I think Meta was a good move. As you mentioned, Facebook brand has been taking a beating. But more importantly, I really believe that their focus in the next decade is going to be the metaverse and not Facebook. That's good for Facebook, no growth plans means they can focus on improving the experience rather than growth which often ruins the experience. Personally for me the only two Meta products I use are WhatsApp and Oculus Quest 2.
MrDresden 5y ago
The only reason I can see for rebranding a known successful brand like Square into Block would be due to some hope of a perceived connection in consumers minds to crypto via the word blockchain. Not being versed in branding strategy, I must say this just feels odd to me and somewhat lowers ny opinion of Square as a proper tech company (why, I can't fully articulate). Edit; I now see that this was due to the fact that the square product is just going to be one of many of the parent corp (i.e Alphabet style). In that sense I guess this makes sense. Just hope that crypto connection was never a part of the discussion/decision for the name.
- thelittleone 5y ago
  A payment application called block? Some might infer the link to blockchain. While to me it has negative connotations such as payments being blocked due to falsely triggering AML etc. Block + payments = blocked payments. I just had a payment blocked temporarily for 48hrs sending on wise.com. First time ever. If it happens again I cancel my account.
  - MrDresden 5y ago
    You're correct, I didn't even see that connection! I think from now on that will be the main connotation that will pop up in my mind when seeing their new name around.
- floatboth 5y ago
  > hope that crypto connection was never a part of the discussion/decision for the name @jack is a massive buttcoiner, OF COURSE it was
pfranz 5y ago
Who cares if the company is called Google or Alphabet? Consumers know the website is google.com. People they want to hire know enough that the company is Alphabet even if consumers don't. I think these new names are silly (even after 6 years of hearing "Alphabet"). It's obvious Meta and Block chose these names to lean into where they want to go. A big reason I think a rename is a good thing is just talking about the company. Does "Facebook" refer to the app, the company, or something that affects Instagram, Oculus, WhatsApp? You can use internal code names, but that still is difficult for investors or new hires to discuss the company. I think this is more of the reason for the name changes instead of their brands imploding.
mountainb 5y ago
It's less driven by the marketing and more driven by the lawyers. It is confusing, it is stupid from the perspective of investors, customers, and users, but it is a defensive maneuver against both the government and potential civil plaintiffs complaining about mismanagement. The government could also at any time revert to the much more stringent antitrust regime that was in place before the 1970s/80s, vestiges of which still impact other older industries, which sharply limit how many lines of business or modes of communication/transportation can be used, much less dominated, by a single firm. There are also of course movements towards more internet-specific regulation, although not much has been actually happening.
mbesto 5y ago
From the Wire on when to rebrand: Stringer Bell: "What are the options when you've got an inferior product in an aggressive marketplace?" Stringer's Community College Business Professor: "Well, if you have a large share of the market you buy up the competition." Stringer (shaking his head): "And if you don't?" Prof: "Reduce price and increase market share." Stringer: "That assumes low overhead." Prof: "Of course. Otherwise you operate at a loss. And worse, as your prices drop, your product loses consumer credibility. You know, the new CEO of World Com was faced with this very problem. The company was linked to one of the biggest fraud cases in history. So he proposed . . ." Stringer: "To change the name." Prof: "Exactly.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  Every time emails leak from facebook/google/amazon showing unflattering things I think of the end of this scene: "Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking!?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g
- penjelly 5y ago
  history erasure of the orwellian variety
  - twiddling 5y ago
    memoryholing
gandutraveler 5y ago
Say whatever was the motive but the meta branding change is the only one that has stuck for me. Of course I don't call Facebook as meta but I'm looking forward to what mark does or not on meta(verse).
bko 5y ago
> Facebook is doing it because their Facebook brand is imploding due to years of mismanagement. It's a dead zone at this pont. I check in once a month and then leave in disgust. Absolutely nothing going on there whatsoever. What do you base this on? This is their revenue, operating profit and monthly active users. I get it, facebook isn't your cup of tea but don't be delusional about them being on the brink of collapse. A lot of people use the product and they're still seeing double digit user growth after nearly 10 years of double digit user growth. Year Revenue Operating profit MAU 2010 $1.97 billion $1.03 billion 482 million 2011 $3.71 billion $1.75 billion 739 million 2012 $5.08 billion $0.53 billion 955 million 2013 $7.87 billion $2.8 billion 1.15 billion 2014 $12.4 billion $4.99 billion 1.31 billion 2015 $17.9 billion $6.22 billion 1.49 billion 2016 $27.6 billion $12.4 billion 1.71 billion 2017 $40.6 billion $20.2 billion 2 billion 2018 $55.8 billion $24.9 billion 2.23 billion 2019 $70.6 billion $23.9 billion 2.41 billion 2020 $85.9 billion $32.6 billion 2.7 billion
- duud 5y ago
  This. People hate Meta/Zuck so much that they can't give credit for what was a brilliant rebrand. Given that what makes a good brand is subjective perhaps a more objective measure is the value of the domains the companies rebranded to. By this count Meta.com > ABC.xyz > Block.xyz. I'm basing this on data available via namebio.com, automated appraisal tools such as GoDaddy Appraisal and Estibot and thousands of hours of personal experience researching, buying and selling domains. Meta.com is worth six or more likely seven or even eight figures as a standalone domain. Block and ABC.xyz? Not so much.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raverbashing 5y ago

I agree. Branding changes "for nothing" help nothing. But the worse contender seems to be Transferwise who changed their name to Wise, losing the recognition and the brand specificity. Oblig. "Yeah that wasn't a very wise choice."

lordnacho 5y ago

It's not just that it's confusing, it's misleading. Humans attach a lot of value to names of things. The whole history of a thing is keyed on its name, a fact that is especially pertinent in the internet era. If some brand has built up a bad rep, they shouldn't be allowed to change it just by renaming themselves. Likewise a firm that's built a good rep and wants to try something new in order to protect the brand shouldn't be allowed to either. I don't know whether the law could ever protect us from this, I suppose it's more the job of the media to keep remind us who Altria are, and where Lexus came from. A lot of brand shenanigans is basically abusing how humans associate history with names. Somehow it's never been an ethical issue to change brands, spawn a new brand, or buy another brand while hollowing out the product.

impulser_ 5y ago

It doesn't matter if they can't name the parent company. Most people using Cash App probably don't even know Square is the parent company lol. They don't care. Same with Tidal now. But Square is a branded platform by Square Inc. So is Cash App apart of the Seller's platform, named Square, or is it apart of Square Inc? This is why they separated. Square brand is now just the Square seller's platform.

tinyhouse 5y ago

I think Meta was a good move. As you mentioned, Facebook brand has been taking a beating. But more importantly, I really believe that their focus in the next decade is going to be the metaverse and not Facebook. That's good for Facebook, no growth plans means they can focus on improving the experience rather than growth which often ruins the experience. Personally for me the only two Meta products I use are WhatsApp and Oculus Quest 2.

MrDresden 5y ago

The only reason I can see for rebranding a known successful brand like Square into Block would be due to some hope of a perceived connection in consumers minds to crypto via the word blockchain. Not being versed in branding strategy, I must say this just feels odd to me and somewhat lowers ny opinion of Square as a proper tech company (why, I can't fully articulate). Edit; I now see that this was due to the fact that the square product is just going to be one of many of the parent corp (i.e Alphabet style). In that sense I guess this makes sense. Just hope that crypto connection was never a part of the discussion/decision for the name.

thelittleone 5y ago
A payment application called block? Some might infer the link to blockchain. While to me it has negative connotations such as payments being blocked due to falsely triggering AML etc. Block + payments = blocked payments. I just had a payment blocked temporarily for 48hrs sending on wise.com. First time ever. If it happens again I cancel my account.
- MrDresden 5y ago
  You're correct, I didn't even see that connection! I think from now on that will be the main connotation that will pop up in my mind when seeing their new name around.
floatboth 5y ago
> hope that crypto connection was never a part of the discussion/decision for the name @jack is a massive buttcoiner, OF COURSE it was

pfranz 5y ago

Who cares if the company is called Google or Alphabet? Consumers know the website is google.com. People they want to hire know enough that the company is Alphabet even if consumers don't. I think these new names are silly (even after 6 years of hearing "Alphabet"). It's obvious Meta and Block chose these names to lean into where they want to go. A big reason I think a rename is a good thing is just talking about the company. Does "Facebook" refer to the app, the company, or something that affects Instagram, Oculus, WhatsApp? You can use internal code names, but that still is difficult for investors or new hires to discuss the company. I think this is more of the reason for the name changes instead of their brands imploding.

mountainb 5y ago

It's less driven by the marketing and more driven by the lawyers. It is confusing, it is stupid from the perspective of investors, customers, and users, but it is a defensive maneuver against both the government and potential civil plaintiffs complaining about mismanagement. The government could also at any time revert to the much more stringent antitrust regime that was in place before the 1970s/80s, vestiges of which still impact other older industries, which sharply limit how many lines of business or modes of communication/transportation can be used, much less dominated, by a single firm. There are also of course movements towards more internet-specific regulation, although not much has been actually happening.

mbesto 5y ago

From the Wire on when to rebrand: Stringer Bell: "What are the options when you've got an inferior product in an aggressive marketplace?" Stringer's Community College Business Professor: "Well, if you have a large share of the market you buy up the competition." Stringer (shaking his head): "And if you don't?" Prof: "Reduce price and increase market share." Stringer: "That assumes low overhead." Prof: "Of course. Otherwise you operate at a loss. And worse, as your prices drop, your product loses consumer credibility. You know, the new CEO of World Com was faced with this very problem. The company was linked to one of the biggest fraud cases in history. So he proposed . . ." Stringer: "To change the name." Prof: "Exactly.

SahAssar 5y ago
Every time emails leak from facebook/google/amazon showing unflattering things I think of the end of this scene: "Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking!?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g
penjelly 5y ago
history erasure of the orwellian variety
- twiddling 5y ago
  memoryholing

gandutraveler 5y ago

Say whatever was the motive but the meta branding change is the only one that has stuck for me. Of course I don't call Facebook as meta but I'm looking forward to what mark does or not on meta(verse).

bko 5y ago

> Facebook is doing it because their Facebook brand is imploding due to years of mismanagement. It's a dead zone at this pont. I check in once a month and then leave in disgust. Absolutely nothing going on there whatsoever. What do you base this on? This is their revenue, operating profit and monthly active users. I get it, facebook isn't your cup of tea but don't be delusional about them being on the brink of collapse. A lot of people use the product and they're still seeing double digit user growth after nearly 10 years of double digit user growth. Year Revenue Operating profit MAU 2010 $1.97 billion $1.03 billion 482 million 2011 $3.71 billion $1.75 billion 739 million 2012 $5.08 billion $0.53 billion 955 million 2013 $7.87 billion $2.8 billion 1.15 billion 2014 $12.4 billion $4.99 billion 1.31 billion 2015 $17.9 billion $6.22 billion 1.49 billion 2016 $27.6 billion $12.4 billion 1.71 billion 2017 $40.6 billion $20.2 billion 2 billion 2018 $55.8 billion $24.9 billion 2.23 billion 2019 $70.6 billion $23.9 billion 2.41 billion 2020 $85.9 billion $32.6 billion 2.7 billion

duud 5y ago
This. People hate Meta/Zuck so much that they can't give credit for what was a brilliant rebrand. Given that what makes a good brand is subjective perhaps a more objective measure is the value of the domains the companies rebranded to. By this count Meta.com > ABC.xyz > Block.xyz. I'm basing this on data available via namebio.com, automated appraisal tools such as GoDaddy Appraisal and Estibot and thousands of hours of personal experience researching, buying and selling domains. Meta.com is worth six or more likely seven or even eight figures as a standalone domain. Block and ABC.xyz? Not so much.