If you like inside baseball stories about branding (and what brand geek doesn’t?), check out CIO’s slideshow:
How 10 Famous Technology Products Got Their Names
Brands include iPod, Blackberry, Firefox, Twitter and the Macintosh “big cat” naming convention. Interesting stuff.
The more I hear about Windows 7, the curiouser it gets. In this interview, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is unable to articulate a “major feature” that would entice people to buy it. He alludes to better performance, “cleanup” of the user interface, multi-touch technology, and better information management tools—summing it all up as, “Windows Vista, a lot better.”
Cripes.
So here we have Microsoft planning a “major release” in Windows 7, which is essentially a new and improved Vista. But because Vista was such a dud, Microsoft ran away from the Vista brand name and into the safe, nearly generic confines of “Windows 7.”
This is more than a naming issue. This is a product development problem combined with an unfocused competitive brand positioning.
Tellingly, Ballmer states in the interview that “no Windows release has to have people want(ing) to use it right away.”
There seems to be an assumption (which is likely true) that anyone using the Windows platform will upgrade to a newer release eventually. I suppose if you own 90% of the market share, with a customer base locked into your products by virtue of your technology platform, then you can release major products without a clear brand positioning and a corresponding benefit-driven brand name.
Still. Just seems to me that Microsoft could speed up adoption of Windows 7 if it had a focused brand positioning so that customers can quickly understand what the product offers.
And yes, actually want to use it right away.
The tech blogs may be praising Microsoft’s name for its new operating system, but here in branding land we’re underwhelmed.
“Windows 7″ is a retreat into safe, bland territory a la “Windows 2″ and “Windows 3.1.” And while Microsoft claims “Windows 7″ reflects a return to “simplicity” and is not a version number, you can bet most casual users will think it is (and may wonder what happened to Windows 4-6).
The name is so weak that it’s almost as if Microsoft doesn’t want anyone to notice it—as if they can slip a new operating system into the market that sorta kinda reminds you of their pre-Vista versions but is really better, because hey, it’s a higher number than we’ve had before.
As an operating system, Vista has been universally panned. So certainly Microsoft was right to dump the Vista brand name for its next major release. But instead of regressing into a been-there, done-that naming style, they should have given their next product such a kick-ass name that the passive-sounding Vista would be a distant memory.
More importantly, they should have tied the name to a differentiating brand promise, such as, oh, I don’t know, maybe the transformative user experience made possible through its multitouch technology?
Recently, Microsoft has shown some branding moxie with its “I’m a PC” campaign, which hits back effectively (albeit belatedly) at Apple’s long-running “Mac vs. PC” commercials. So it’s disappointing to see such reticence on the naming side of their branding initiatives.
As a PC user, I can only hope that Windows 7, the operating system, will far outshine its uninspired brand name.
Some good news out of Paris last week. Internet regulators convened to discuss opening up top-level domains to companies, organizations and governments who can afford to buy them.
For a price tag ranging from about $40,000 to $400,000, you can buy your very own customized dot-name. New York City, for example, could purchase .nyc. Product categories could have their own extension, such as .car, .sports, and .bank. There is already talk of an .ebay extension. Investors could purchase dot-names, then sell the rights to a registrar such as GoDaddy, effectively adding other options of top-level domains to .com, .biz., .net, .info and the rest.
What does this mean for naming? With a sudden, explosive increase in available names, maybe the cachet around the prima facie dot-com name will finally begin to fade. Speculators who have been hoarding domain names may well be forced to lower their asking prices, as businesses find prima facie versions of their names available with a new extension.
With so many extensions available, predicting an URL for direct input into a browser will be more and more difficult for users. The current trend of navigating the Web via search, rather than direct URL, will become nearly universal. This, too, will decrease the need for a prima facie dot-com name.
And, God willing, we will see an end to nonsense Web 2.0 domain names. If suddenly more domain names are available, there will be no excuse for choosing a brand name based on what URL you could buy for $8.95 at GoDaddy.
Of course, you still have to find an available name that can be trademarked, but at least this will make the domain name piece of the naming puzzle a whole lot easier.
The reliably clear-thinking Laura Ries goes off on a tear in her blog today over the positioning and naming blunders of the company that makes her favorite athletic shoe. MBT shoes are a classic example of a marketing myopia. It’s a condition found in clients who are far too close to their own product–and by close, I mean not only too immersed in the product’s most minute details, but also truly madly deeply in love with it.
As a result, they’re unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices in messaging that lead to a focused positioning. Positioning is the art of sacrifice. Effective positioning requires a crystal clear, single-minded, simple idea. MBT’s “Physiological footwear” ain’t it. Ries suggests, “Makes every walk a workout.” Much clearer, dontcha think?
Regardless of the complexities inherent in any product or service, its message needs to be simple. Creating a brand name is the acid test of the clarity of product’s positioning. If a positioning is too broad and/or complex, you will never get to a strong brand name.
The company that makes “physiological footwear” named itself Masai Barefoot Technology, which is so long and cryptic that it was shortened to MBT, effectively stripping away all meaning from the name.
As Ries says, it’s a great product. But between the brand’s ineffective positioning and terrible name, the loss of potential brand impact is incalculable.
All because they were too close and too in love.
The Ford Fiesta is making a return to the American market. Company officials announced that a new version of the Fiesta, which has been selling well in Europe, Asia and Latin America for the past 30 years, will be launched globally within the next two years.
And in a move that has some Ford execs nervous, the car will have the same name in every country, rather than allowing regional marketing teams to develop names that leverage the local culture.
Ford is going for efficiencies, despite the risks associated with the one-name-fits-all approach.
The company needs just one logo for ads, one set of nameplates for products; and online content and film for TV commercials can be shared. Branding experts say using one name can save a business tens of millions of dollars a year in marketing costs.
“Branding experts” also say it’s expensive and difficult to change a negative brand perception. But that’s what Ford is up against here in the States.
When Ford introduced the Fiesta in the U.S. in the late ’70s, though, the car was so unpopular it was pulled from the lineup after two years. Recently, some of those questioned in focus groups said “Fiesta” sounded cheap.
Yes, that’s how I remember it, too. It was right in there with those boxy little Chevettes, Vegas, Pintos and the rest of their ilk–Detroit’s late-in-the-game answer to our collective shock when gas prices rose to A DOLLAR A GALLON late in the decade.
Granted, today’s Fiesta looks nothing like the uninspired model from the 70’s–and it had better not. The new Fiesta had better be as differentiated as possible from the Fiesta that many Americans still think of as “cheap.” And Ford would do well to market this Fiesta to an audience too young to remember the first one.
It’s a gamble. Will Ford save enough in marketing efficiencies to cover the costs of the full-barrel PR and advertising blitz needed to re-map the Fiesta brand name to this (hopefully) superior car?
And even if a younger audience doesn’t remember the first Fiesta, is the “Fiesta” name itself cool enough to attract them?
We’ll see if this Fiesta lasts longer here the second time around.
We have long admired Jawbone headsets from Aliph, not only for their sleek design, but also for their spot-on brand name. Now Aliph is showing some additional positioning prowess with the introduction of the personality-driven Jawbone Limited Edition “Jawbone Loves Talk” series.
Featuring a smooth case that differentiates them from the standard mesh design of other models, the limited edition headsets are available in three colors–and three different embossed mood statements:
As far as we can tell, they’re technologically identical. And while headsets have always triggered emotional purchases based on color and design, this is the first we’ve seen with a emotional overlay appealing to personal whimsies or communication styles.
Aliph released this limited edition at this year’s Ted conference, and sadly, the headsets are not only scarce in quantity but almost impossible to find. You can’t just up and buy one. Of course, that merely heightens their appeal.
Want one. Really want one. Gold, please.
Joshua Weinberg of Digital Life Consulting Group has a fascinating and thorough account of Apple’s product launch methodology. Well worth a read.
I was struck by Apple’s laser focus on the smallest details and how much effort is put into maintaining consistency in branding and customer experience. Weinberg writes,
The obsession with form, fit and finish extends even to the most minor or hidden parts. One of the most time-consuming design tasks of a recent laptop introduction, an Apple hardware manager said, was to make sure that screws on the bottom of the machine did not disrupt the smooth flow of the computer’s aluminum skin–even though most users will never even look at the underside.
And they say PC users are anal … 
Powered by WordPress | ©2008 Pollywog, Inc.