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.
I’m not a big fan of naming rights for sports stadiums. From a branding perspective, the name of the venue ought to be about the team, or at least the community. It ought not be about which corporation ponied up the most money so that its brand can intrude on the tribe.
But, capitalism being what it is, I expect naming rights are here to stay.
And as much as the subject irks me from a branding perspective, it’s an even more interesting question among journalists. As Pepsi enjoys endless repetitions of its brand name by the national media during the Democratic National Convention, Al Tomkins at Poynter Online asks whether this constitutes an unacceptable blend of marketing message and journalistic content.
Must We Call It the Pepsi Center?
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.
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:
- Gold: Sweet Talk (flower)
- Black: Dirty Talk (Playboyesque silhouette)
- White: Trash Talk (Cartoon obscenity)
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.
Oh, this one hurts.
Just when I thought Kodak was set to rise from the ashes with its new disruptive printing technology, I find out what they named the product line.
EasyShare All-In-One printers.
Yes, EasyShare.
What’s that? Sounds familiar to you? Yes, me too, and not in a good way. EasyShare as a brand name has been around since 2001 to describe, according to Wikipedia,
… a consumer photography system of digital cameras, snapshot printers (ex. KODAK EASYSHARE Photo Printer 500), printer docks (ex. KODAK EASYSHARE G600 Printer Dock), accessories (ex. KODAK EASYSHARE Picture Viewer), camera docks (ex. KODAK EASYSHARE Camera Dock Series 3), software (ex. KODAK EASYSHARE Software v6.0), and online print services (KODAK EASYSHARE Gallery). There are five sub-product camera lines, “series”, that separate the cameras into different classes: EASYSHARE Point and Shoot (C series), EASYSHARE High Zoom (Z series), EASYSHARE Pocket (V series), EASYSHARE Performance (P series), and EASYSHARE-ONE (wi-fi capable).
What a mishmash. And now this great technology, which should have been splashily introduced as the next big, bright new wave in printers is going to be obscured by the foggy cloud of a confusing, weak brand. Whatever the EasyShare brand name means to consumers, “great color at super low cartridge costs” isn’t it.
Because of this ill-conceived brand extension strategy, Kodak will have to spend much more to communicate that this printer is really different. Will the product’s positioning sink in fast enough for it to get a foothold in the market? I hope so, but I have my doubts.
