They're changing the name, OK. But I can't figure out what this person is trying to say about what the company is now. The "diagrams" don't really help
> So creating a new super company name, like Alphabet, which sounds a lot like Altria (phillip morris) to me, that isn't directly tied to the other companies would have been a sensible direction.
Kinda off-topic, but I feel like such corporate renamings should be illegal, or at least heavily scrutinized and subject to regulatory approval. Brands are socially useful to help track both positive and negative perceptions. Personal name changes often cannot be performed to "to avoid the consequences of a criminal conviction" [1], and I don't think the a company should be able to use them to avoid the reputational consequences of their actions.
To add, it's bizarre that the top-voted comment is touting the upside of a name-change. As it stands, folks will get the wrong impression that a name change will be a critical factor for a company in turnaround mode.
>Isn't rebranding what companies do when they run out of ideas (one of my old employers changed its name at least 3 times because... why?
This is what I figure. That or they want people to forget about lousy things they've done. Dunno if it was ever true, but hearing the rumour that Kentucky fried chicken switched to KFC to avoid being associated with fried chicken and the health issues surrounding trans fats that were a big deal at the time sort of stuck with me.
Personally, I'd trust the company that's kept the same boring name for a decade over one that's renamed themselves several times in the same period.
> rebrand themselves as "Spectrum" in markets where they already had a presence (such as New York City)
Is that a nice way of saying they're rebranding themselves to anyone already familiar with the brand. The assumption being anyone familiar with the brand has a negative image of it :)
> it's because you've run your brand name into the ground
And even then it usually doesn't work. It's _very_ unusual for full-scale rebrands of consumer-facing companies, where the original brand is utterly expunged, to stick.
I speak English, but I can’t follow what this means:
> In fact we have simplified all our naming: Element is also the name for New Vector (the company behind Riot) while Modular, our flagship Matrix hosting service, has become Element Matrix Services.
Is New Vector now names Element, too? Or is this some sort of nickname? A doing business as name?
There is no rule that says you can only reply to the primary point of a comment. Personally I found the clarification interesting, and learned something from it. Why do you think that detracts from the point about the potential motivation behind the rebranding? It's possible to learn more than one thing...
> Connection is evolving and so are we.
> The metaverse is the next evolution of social connection. Our company’s vision is to help bring the metaverse to life, so we are changing our name to reflect our commitment to this future.
In other words, nothing will change, just the name.
One of the biggest names in tech changed the branding for a service in certain markets where the English title translated into profanity. It's the responsible move if you're operating globally.
Apologies for ambiguity, but this is a case where I can't be any more specific.
Can someone explain what the name means? I don't understand why it's not neutral.
reply