3 ms·

The brand is the only thing that matters. Everyone here saw the post last week, consumers gave Live Search the highest marks when it was dressed up with a Googl

The brand is the only thing that matters. Everyone here saw the post last week, consumers gave Live Search the highest marks when it was dressed up with a Google logo and stylesheet. The brand is it. And branding doesn't sink or swim based on name alone, but it isn't a trivial factor.

staunch 17y ago
I don't disagree that a name is important, but it's not what makes or breaks a product or company. The reason people think the search results labeled Google are better is because of the brand behind it, not because of the letters G O O G L E.
- encoderer 17y ago
  this is a little silly because I think we're both in agreement. Brand is what matters in search, more than the (often minor) algorithmic differences. That's what that "placebo test" last week demonstrated. And the reason I brought up brand is that Microsoft has to build one now. And for that task, the letters matter.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    Are we all forgetting why Google has the brand it does? There may be minor algorithmic differences between search engines now, but in 2000 Google's results completely crushed those of other SEs. Quality of results (and speed) matters most. Brand starts to matter when a product or service becomes a commodity and competitors need to differentiate themselves, which is essentially the situation we find ourselves in now with search. But to say that brand is all that matters is a little simplistic. If Microsoft has truly created a better search product in terms of results and/or speed then brand matters much much less. But I do agree that there is a perception that Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate in search and on the web generally, so the decision to leave the Microsoft name off of Bing makes complete sense.
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      That perception only exists among the sort of people who read this site. The other 99% of the populace doesn't think that deeply about it, and even if they did, they have a much more favorable opinion of Microsoft. They started going to Google for whatever reason and stuck there because for many years it was light years ahead of the rest in terms of quality. Now it's going to take a much better search engine to top them. And if Microsoft made that engine, they could just leave it at live.com and grow (and at least it'd have the old 8% market share to start with). And if they don't, they can change the name every week and totally disavow any involvement but it still won't matter.
      - fluffster 17y ago
        >The other 99% of the populace... It's more like the other 99.999%.
axod 17y ago
I don't buy that. I've never been able to get any useful results out of live.com. It's just dire technology.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Right, but you're one data point.

staunch 17y ago

I don't disagree that a name is important, but it's not what makes or breaks a product or company. The reason people think the search results labeled Google are better is because of the brand behind it, not because of the letters G O O G L E.

encoderer 17y ago
this is a little silly because I think we're both in agreement. Brand is what matters in search, more than the (often minor) algorithmic differences. That's what that "placebo test" last week demonstrated. And the reason I brought up brand is that Microsoft has to build one now. And for that task, the letters matter.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Are we all forgetting why Google has the brand it does? There may be minor algorithmic differences between search engines now, but in 2000 Google's results completely crushed those of other SEs. Quality of results (and speed) matters most. Brand starts to matter when a product or service becomes a commodity and competitors need to differentiate themselves, which is essentially the situation we find ourselves in now with search. But to say that brand is all that matters is a little simplistic. If Microsoft has truly created a better search product in terms of results and/or speed then brand matters much much less. But I do agree that there is a perception that Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate in search and on the web generally, so the decision to leave the Microsoft name off of Bing makes complete sense.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    That perception only exists among the sort of people who read this site. The other 99% of the populace doesn't think that deeply about it, and even if they did, they have a much more favorable opinion of Microsoft. They started going to Google for whatever reason and stuck there because for many years it was light years ahead of the rest in terms of quality. Now it's going to take a much better search engine to top them. And if Microsoft made that engine, they could just leave it at live.com and grow (and at least it'd have the old 8% market share to start with). And if they don't, they can change the name every week and totally disavow any involvement but it still won't matter.
    - fluffster 17y ago
      >The other 99% of the populace... It's more like the other 99.999%.

axod 17y ago

I don't buy that. I've never been able to get any useful results out of live.com. It's just dire technology.

stanleydrew 17y ago
Right, but you're one data point.