Four Problems With Facebook’s Corporate Name Change
David Aaker
Vice Chairman at Prophet, Brand Strategist and Author of 18 books including "The Future of Purpose-Driven Branding"
I do think Facebook needs to start a conversation beside one that focuses on and perpetuates its existential brand crisis. The metaverse concept might well be a vehicle for a new conversation and the Meta brand, therefore, was a good move, but it did not have to involve rebranding the company. Here are four reasons why.?
1. Many are looking for Facebook to address the brand crisis issues with new programs, processes, people, and culture that represent responsive and meaningful change.?They may consider a corporate name change, which is a major one-time event, a signal that real change to address those problems has occurred.?As the realization emerges that that expectation is not realized, the result people may feel disappointing, let down.
2. An alternative to a firm name change would be to make Meta a platform "concept" brand that could apply to several or all the business units rather than being a corporate brand. Meta could then become a visible and vocal thought and market leader around its ambitious idea. Salesforce became the exemplar for cloud computing two decades ago, and they did not create or change a firm name to one representing cloud computing. Making the metaverse a Tesla electric car home run will be challenging with respect to the technological issues and getting the market to accept a new way to interact with their social and physical environment. If it turns out to be a single instead of a home run, a name change for the firm might be regretted.??
领英推荐
3. Another way to change the conversation or at least provide an alternative is to lead with action on the social front, finding a social need niche and active set of programs.?Salesforce became known for using their technology for good and created an active discussion around their 1-1-1 social effort.?Walmart created a huge environmental effort that changed the conversation without renaming themselves. It is now hard to hate Walmart. Facebook has an impressive environmental effort and has some potential signature social programs and could do more to develop a coherent ESG narrative around the social issues it is addressing. Better branding and more aggressive social thought leadership might not solve the image problem but would introduce an alternative conversation. And an alternative discussion around corporate social issue leadership would be more effective if the Facebook name was used and credited instead of Meta.
4. A reason for a new corporate brand is to have a home for business units that represent a stretch and might even be inconsistent for the existing business.?To achieve this objective it is best to have a neutral name like Alphabet or Amazon which is not confining.?The new name Meta along with how it is implemented in the market may be too specific and tied to a business model or conceptual platform to provide the broad strategic scope that might someday be useful.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
President at Ilan Geva & Friends, Senior Strategy Director & Head of US and Americas office at Vmarsh Healthcare
2 年Agree with all your comments. As it stands today, after lots of noise, it looks like lipstick on a pig.
Brand & business strategists | Positioning startups, early-stage & SMEs for competitive advantage & sustainable success | Building performance, revenue, & equity value for 25+ years. | And trying to fix one ugly slice ??
2 年All great points, David Aaker, and spot-on. However, they may have forgone intelligent strategic brand considerations for the business decision of separating and shielding key leadership from the many governance, privacy, and policy issues plaguing the brand today. Zuckerberg, as head of Meta and someone else as head of Facebook, gives him a degree of separation. It feels like a move of desperation, not one of sound brand strategy. And it feels a bit transparent to me.
Chief Executive Officer, Conversation Media Limited
2 年My take out "Meta along with how it is implemented in the market may be too specific and tied to a business model or conceptual platform to provide the broad strategic scope that might someday be useful". This means Meta should be allowed to Metamorphosis into a transiting framework for solving core and general business issues, without fixation/oriented to a single brand purpose or solution... Right?
Emeritus, University of Westminster
3 年With due respect David, I'm not sure that I agree. The corporation has grown beyond the original product and brand, and MZ's aspirations for it extend way beyond that. How does the corporate rebrand differ from that of Alphabet, or, for that matter, more historic corporate changes like Standard Oil to ESSO, and then ESSO to EXXON? Facebook is still Facebook, and will continue to benefit (or suffer, depending on your pov) from the considerable brand equity that it has acquired, and will be able to work on this independent of what its parent gets up to. The actual choice of name is a separate issue...
Helping drive business and innovation across North Carolina | growth strategist, advisor, and leader
3 年A lot of players are referring to the “metaverse.” I’m a bit more cynical about the name change. To me, it’s a strategic legal wrangling of a trademark designed to push out competitors from using the term “meta” or “metaverse” by a corporate behemoth. Epic (NC’s pride and joy) is far more prepared to successfully create and deploy a metaverse. But what is Epic to do when it comes time to naming it now that Facebook is well prepared to sue. The lawyers wrote this business plan and I believe will be the only winners. It’s likely a signal of Facebook’s (cough, Meta’s) fear of what’s around the corner.