![]() ![]() And let’s not forget, calling an $839-billion advertising platform after a printed college “face book” is as anachronistic as Britain’s Carphone Warehouse - which for many years neither sold carphones, nor operated from a warehouse. PayPal used to be Confinity eBay was Auction Web and Instagram was Burbn. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with rebranding. At the other, are brands that merely wish to reposition their public perception (Weight Watchers, Dunkin’ Donuts), or react to changing times (Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben’s). At one end of the spectrum are brands that have the taint of horror (Blackwater, Philip Morris). People have rightly noted the tendency of in-trouble or out-of-touch brands to rename. When Penguin merged with Random House, the world crossed its fingers for “Penguin House” or even “Random Penguin” - but had to acknowledge the good-sense sobriety of “Penguin Random House.”Īlso read: How failures set the path to success in drug development Too elaborate, creative or funny a name would have merely added fuel to the raging fire, rather than doused it with dullness. However, “fine” may be the sweet spot for such an endeavor. Given there is no “good” name for a “bad” company - and that nothing Mark Zuckerberg might do could ever win the internet - avoiding catastrophe was the bar. Setting aside, briefly, the vital debate on Facebook Inc.’s myriad evils, and focusing specifically on the name and brand, there are some elements of note. By Ben Schott, Bloomberg Opinion: Facebook Inc., you may have heard, has changed its name to Meta. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |