Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Brand names that mean nothing

Friday, April 29th, 2011

I’m always intrigued by brand names that are “different”.  It makes me wonder how the company came up with the name, and what it was intended to stand for – the “story” behind the name.  The purist in me shakes me head, but as I admitted in an earlier related blog (What’s in a name?), the realist in me accepts that this is simply reality, especially in today’s online world. 

One brand name that got me thinking was Zoosk (as in zoosk.com), the world’s largest online dating community, and Facebook’s #1 dating application, which has been around since late 2007.  As a happily married person I wouldn’t typically come across, or perhaps be aware of the site, but an ad on TV caught my eye.  My reaction – what a great name, whatever it is or isn’t meant to mean!  It’s short and punchy.  It starts with an unusual letter – and is also a bold move because it’s the last letter of the alphabet, which some would consider as being disadvantageous when it comes to listings, which tend to be alphabetical.  

The name also reminded me of something I learned about branding and selecting a name – that a name is often an empty vessel, which takes on meaning over time, based on what its customers think or feel.  It takes a wise (or brave) brander to settle on a name that appears to have no real meaning to it. 

The brand has been a huge success, that’s obvious.  How much of it is the actual name, which they’ve leveraged to call their community members “Zooskers”?  And how much of it is due to the offering itself and the experience its members have – i.e. that they’ve “gotten it right” and the service is simply better than what’s out there?  Regardless, the name certainly isn’t holding it back, and is more likely adding to the intrigue and appeal of the brand. 

What do you think about the Zoosk name?  Should brand names “mean” something?

If you can’t beat them, join them

Friday, April 8th, 2011

I thought it was interesting to learn that U.S. President Obama had announced Jay Carney, a former journalist, as the next White House Press Secretary to replace Robert Gibbs

As an observer of U.S. politics, my first reaction was that this was a very calculated and clever move on Obama’s part – or perhaps a move of desperation?  Obama has used the media, including social media, more than any other U.S. President.  With his popularity decline – amongst the media, pundits, and the general public – it appears that he’s turning to someone who knows how to “play” the media to help turn things around.  “If you can’t beat them, join them”!

 I guess time will tell if Carney is the guy to turn things around in Obama’s favour, particularly as Obama begins his unofficial 2012 campaign!

 What do you think?  Is this a clever move on Obama’s part?

Hypocrisy at play

Friday, February 4th, 2011

In following the media coverage that seems to be surrounding us these days about the crises in Tunisia, and now Egypt, I couldn’t help but think that I was seeing some hypocrisy at play – as relates to Internet “censorship”.  

On the one hand, the U.S. and other countries were condemning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for blocking most of the Internet and text messaging services in Egypt, including popular social networking sites such as Twitter.  How dare he try to “control” in this way?   It flies in the face of the intent of the Internet, and the rights of individuals to express themselves?  That’s what the global community is saying. 

(As an aside, what Mubarak didn’t realize is that he could take control by becoming part of the conversation, vs. just trying to shut it down.  That’s the power of social media and the Internet!) 

I also chuckled when I read that China had blocked the search term “Egypt” on major web portals, instead returning an error message saying the topic was not allowed under “relevant laws”.  Again, a controlling move made out of fear – that the Chinese people may get ideas about doing the same in their country? 

Now turn back the clock to the latest WikiLeaks scandal, and remember that the U.S. called for it to be shut down.  Isn’t this a bit hypocritical given what they are now saying about Mubarak’s move?  One thing for sure is that both controlling moves were ones made out of fear (and desperation?). 

Is it just me, or is this hypocrisy at play?  You can’t have it both ways.