Jumping the FailWhale: Twitter’s biggest problems

This morning’s Twitter outage, symptoms is only one of the many problems facing brand Twittter. Back in June, order early in my Twitter career (yes, the Twitterverse is turning quickly my friends) I blogged about this – No Twitter Brand, what are YOU doing? But now that I’ve had time to think about this some more (thanks for the outage Twitter!), I’ve got some more thoughts – all of which require more than 140 characters.

Aquatic superstar rising (falling?)... Just one of the great fanart images at www.failwhale.com.
Aquatic superstar rising (falling?)... Just one of the great fanart images at www.failwhale.com.

Over the next week or two, I’ll deal with 3 major brand credibility problems Twitter is facing, followed by a set of solutions I’ll modestly put forward. 

The Jumping the Failwhale series: Twitter’s biggest problems

  • Problem 1: Brand Promise: (in this post – see below) the free ride will have to end, and the real owners of the Twitter brand will not be pleased.
  • Problem 2: Brand Character: (coming soon) Twitter feels more “Social” and less like serious “Media”. Basically, the boss ain’t buying it, and unless something changes, he may be right.
  • Problem 3: Brand Personality: (coming soon)Despite the fresh, breezy cartoon-graphics, the kids aren’t twittering. Twitter is fast becoming an old people’s brand and the problem is hard-wired into the product.
  • Solutions:  (coming soon) My 10 Recommendations to save Twitter.

Problem 1: Brand Promise. The free ride will end.

A Brand Promise is the implicit set of expectations a brand builds up in the mind of its customers over time. And just like a real-world promise, the owner of the promise (and indeed the brand itself) is the person to whom the promise is made: the customer. Twitter carried by whales

The promise of Twitter 

Twitter users have come to value, and expect, a free, open online community accessible to all with 1) an Internet connection and 2) enough time to cultivate a Twitter brand of your own.

The problem with this is that of course, the party can’t go on like this forever. There are real world implications to the scale of Twitter’s success. Yup, I mean big crashes like this morning. But more to the point: money / revenue / filthy lucre / a basic business model. This is of course a no-brainer, because it’s a problem with all Social Media. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, and a thousand other online communities and services have built their huge audiences fast on the same implicit promise.

Try it, use it forever, and pay nothing – with no ads – all of these are very attractive hooks to get people in. But having set those expectations in customers’ minds, no one should be surprised if they feel betrayed if you suddenly try to “monetize” their “eyeballs”. Oh, they’ll understand. But this isn’t about rational thought; it’s about a broken promise.

I can hear the objection: “but we never said it would be free forever”. Doesn’t matter. Your actions led them to expect it would be free forever, which in their mind is the same thing.

A summer-friendly analogy

Imagine that one day I mow my neighbour’s lawn, then laugh off any payment he might offer by saying “that’s what neighbours do”. Don’t you think it would make him happy and strengthen our neighbourly bond? Probably. As long as he didn’t suspect my motives.

Which leads me to the following week, when I tell him “I’ve decided that the price of gas being what it is, you either have to pay me a dollar to do it again, or listen to a 5 minute pitch for my business.” 

He’ll understand. He might even recognize that it’s a really good deal I’m offering. But do you think he’d be happy about it?

An example from my practice

We dealt with this issue last year while I was acting Vice President of Marketing at CoursePark.com – an online learning management network. We played around with a number of options, from totally free access (like Facebook or Twitter), to pay-per-use, or just a low-cost subscription. Our solution in the end: give users a free-forever option, but a) be very clear what the limits were, b) set clear prices on the commercial e-learning content we sold through our library, c) give them an expanded range of capabilities for free in exchange for sharing their content with the rest of CoursePark, and d) make it easy and transparent to allow them to upgrade to the “enterprise” version for larger programs / more support / more member controls.

The bottom line

Be careful what you promise (even implicitly); your customers will hold you too it.
If you’re building a business, people are cool with that – if they know your motives in advance.
If you have built expectations that you can’t sustain, don’t assume that you can change the rules at will. You will pay for it.

RadioShack tries some funky brand-altering substances

Here we go again. In June, side effects we blogged about Pizza Hut experimenting with becoming “The Hut” (Pizza Hut drops the Pizza.. again – spoiler alert, Jabba was not pleased). Now Radio Shack, fresh off its announcement that Lance Armstrong will represent it (blog entry here), has announced that on August 6, it will be rebranding as – wait for it: The Shack

My take: resist the Temptation(s)… 

Psychedelic Shack
Cover of the Temptations' 1970 album where they experimented with brand-altering substances - apologies to the band for the rip-off, but buy the album. It's great.

Come in and take a look at your mind

This past weekend, on the way to the cottage, I reintroduced myself (and my very patient wife and kids) to one of my favourite campy-classic albums The Temptations 1970 Psychedelic Shack – hear it here / buy it here. Very funky, very funny, and obviously written under the influence of the hippy era (and probably a lot of other stuff too).

People let me tell you about a place I know
To get in it don’t take much dough
Where you can really do your thing, oh yeah
It’s got a neon sign outside that says
Come in and take a look at your mind
You’d be surprised what you might find, yeah

The Temptations

Take a look at your mind indeed – and be surprised. Because, while this is very entertaining, catchy music, the first reaction of anyone I’ve played this for is: “What were they smoking? That’s not the Temptations!”

The Temptations of the mind.
The Temptations of the mind.

That’s because the Temptations are imprinted in the public’s mind as a sweet-singing, sharp-dressing, doo-wop group with such amazing mid-60’s hits as “My Girl” and “Get Ready“. The funkadelic hippy incarnation of the Temptations seems like a totally different band / brand – and an aberration in their development.

“But hey, that’s not fair!” you say. Shouldn’t an artist have the freedom to break out of the genre box and try something new? Why shouldn’t Billy Bob try to rebrand himself as a rockabilly musician as if his movie career never existed? Why shouldn’t a classic electronics retail brand try to reinvent itself in a cooler, funkier package?

Because life, and more to the point the life of a brand, isn’t fair. 

The RadioShack of the mind

And speaking of funky little retro-branded shacks with neon signs outside, that brings us to “The Shack”. As a child of the 1970’s, here’s how RadioShack appears in my mind.

In my brain, RadioShack isn’t all positive: this brand could be a crass, hard-selling little shyster. But it was where the first computer I ever used came from (one of these – a TRS-80 as seen in this Smithsonian archive), where I bought my first AM radio and my first video game (this Pong / Skeet shooting hybrid) and it’s where I always went for batteries and obscure electronic components and cables throughout the 80’s and 90’s.

So while I’ll admit it’s a flawed and faded brand in my brain, RadioShack still there, and I still smile when I see that ad above.  So why shouldn’t they do what the Temptations did and re-package themselves to keep up with the times?

6 Reasons Radio Shack shouldn’t become “The Shack”

169526-radioshack-credit-radioshack2_original[1]
The RadioShack of the mind.
1) 88 Years of brand equity. Just as the Temptations couldn’t turn their brand on a dime, the Radio Shack brand comes with a lot of baggage – and value – in the form of customer expectations. Pop quiz: can you name another consumer electronics retailer that has a longer history? Trick question. There isn’t one. Founded in 1921, Radio Shack is pretty firmly established in the public’s mind by now. Yes “radio” is a quaint and old fashioned word, but in the hands of the right brand manager, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. And if you must change, handle the public’s expectations (and hang-ups) with care.

2) Radio Shack, the company, is in decline. As lampooned in this Onion article from 2007, it’s hard to imagine how RadioShack stays in business, and indeed, despite some recent cost-cutting that temporarily buoyed the numbers, analysts feel the same way. Rebranding is most successful when it is seen as part of a positive change in the history of the organization. Otherwise it just looks like “rearranging the deck chairs” at best, as a hoplessly desparate act at worst.

3) There are no shortcuts. As discussed last week (see the NOMO series), an abbreviation is seldom a strong brand. “FedEx” was able to pull it off when it shortened from “Federal Express” because the resulting word was an even stronger, more distinctive name. But just like “The Hut”, “The Shack” doesn’t contain enough a) information, or b) character to serve as a strong platform for a new brand. It seems like a step backwards.

4) It’s tough to use grammatically.  think about the difference between “Team Radio Shack” and “Team The Shack”. If it’s difficult to use, people won’t use it. Don’t believe me? Look North. In Canada, where the Radio Shack chain was purchased by Circuit City, they rebranded as “The Source – by Circuit City”. The name doesn’t have the distinctiveness, penetration, or staying power of “Circuit City” so many people used that instead; I’ve heard it called “Circuit City Source”. Now they’ve dropped the “by Circuit City”, but it’s still awkward. 

5) It’s not a Shack! Okay, this may strike readers as incredibly petty-minded, but it always bugs me when a retail company chooses a metaphor like “__Shack” “__Hut” “__House” or “___Chalet” and then doesn’/t reinforce the metaphor through the design of its outlets. Not cheesy or over the top of course, but just a distinctive roofline, a few subtle hints to give the store “placeness”.

6) It cheapens the brand. but the biggest problem in my opinion is that by using a name that is slang shorthand (and trendy), Radio Shack is cheapening its image and thus  playing into the hands of one of its most damaging negative sterotypes: that it is a purveyor of cheap, outdated, breakable products.  This is what is killing RadioShack, not the name. “The Shack” sounds even cheaper, and what’s worse, it makes an 88 year old company sound like a fly-by-night! Which may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How to do it right

If Radio Shack really wanted to refresh its image, my recommendation would have been in two steps: 

a) Work to find your DIFFERs: a set of key differentiators, based on “real brand” attributes in the public mind – which you would then use as “themes” to guide an upgrade program for the whole organization: prove to people that you offer better products, better service, better experience. Then, only once this is well underway, and you can show tangible results, should you…

b) Re-launch your brand: using the themes established in #1 as pillars of your new positioning, name, design system, and promise to customers.

An abbreviation is not a brand, & all acronyms are bad! (NOMO part 2)

(Part 2 of a series about abbreviated brand names.) Yesterday, healing I ranted about the use of nomonyms (unhelpful abbreviations) in government. But of course, page as you’ll read in this and subsequent posts, the problem of bad abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms goes far beyond government. But the two biggest problems of all are right in the headline…

Just a few of the exciting things you can expect from SMC - a TLA extraordinaire.
Just a few of the exciting things you can expect from SMC - a TLA extraordinaire.

Whoops. I lied. Twice.

Okay, a confession. In the headline, I lied a little – sort of. And what’s more, I kind of lied twice. But they’re well-meaning white lies, so if you can forgive me, I’ll explain why I lied. Today, I’ll deal with lie number one, on abbreviations. Tomorrow we’ll deal with lie number 2 and the problems with actual acronyms.

Lie number 1 (sort of): an abbreviation is not a brand.

What I’m talking about here are a specific kind of abbreviation: initialisms. These are names where you take the first letters of a longer name or set of names, and create a “monogram” for the company – like “IBM”.

So I hear some readers screaming “But IBM is a brand – and a really, really valuable brand!” Yup. It sure is. Actually it’s the second most valuable brand in the world. As I said before, I lied.

And here are a few more names that make me look like a really big fat liar: H&M, AIG, SMC, HP, HSBC, ING. All giants in the branding world. So yeah, my pants are seriously on fire. An abbreviation actually can be a brand – and it can even be a very powerful brand, maybe even second best in the world.

So is naming your product or company with an initialism a smart idea? Absolutely not!

That’s because, while it turns out an abbreviated name can become a brand (shame on me), an initialism is not inherently a brand, and strategically, not the right choice for 99% of products. It the names of all these things are exerting a negative drag on their “brandness” (communication value).
Just think about the names again. Chances are you recognize most of those abbreviations. But look again.

I lied again: SMC is a fake.

The many faces of SMC.
A google search showing the many potential brands of SMC.

Or rather, SMC is a real name, but not one you’ve ever heard of unless you’re into SMC pneumatic automation products (and who isn’t really?). Or maybe you went to SMC (Santa Monica College), use the SMC (State Machine Compiler), climb with the SMC (Scottish Mountaineering Club), belong to the SMC (Small to Medium Company business councils), or are active in a SMC (Social Media Club – which is where I first heard the term and got stumped).

Or maybe you’re a marketing executive at the Irvine California high tech hardware company called SMC Networks . If so, best of luck with that. They’ve been around since 1971, own the dot-com, and still can’t hit #1 on Google.

Be like IBM at your peril

The big brands I mentioned above – including IBM – are successful in spite of the limitations imposed by their current names, not because the names themselves are strong. And note that most of them became major brands under whatever name their current moniker is short for. International Business Machines is a dull, descriptive clunker, but that name was the company for most of its history, and still exists as a hidden secondary brand. That’s because a TLA can’t exist in a vacuum; when people encounter one, they do what you just did. They try to figure out what the heck T-L-A stands for (Three Letter Abbreviation – see?).

A TLA is an empty vessel, which people will try to fill with meaning. Now you can invest decades of time, or gajillions of dollars helping them FILL that container with your preferred meanings, but just remember SMC. If that’s your strategy, you’d darn well better be ready to outspend the Scottish Mountaineering Club – and all the other SMCs. Which is another problem: you can never really own a TLA – or a FLUA (Four Letter Unintelligible Acronym), or other random assembly of letters.

IBM does. Because they’re IBM.

So giving your startup company a TLA “because it works for IBM” is kind of like an ambitious but poor college grad buying a $100,000 car because that’s what rich people do…

So if I have a TLA, how can it become a brand?

Basically, if you want to build a brand around a TLA it has to meet my three basic criteria for a brand:

  1. People (other than you and your inner circle) have to notice it and understand that the name equals the company, product, or concept you’re trying to promote;
  2. People (other than you) have to remember it (or at least have a fighting chance of doing so if they try); and
  3. People (other than you) have to use it as a tool to speak about you to others with the reasonable assumption that others will understand and be able to go back to #1).

And with a TLA, all of these thing sbecome much harder.

So if you are SMC, RPQ, or XYZ, and you can’t change for the moment, then you have my sympathy. Now get to work. Your customers need you.

If you are considering becoming TLA Inc. or launching your new product TLA, and if your boss is telling you it’s a good idea, please slow down. There are lots of ways to find a much better name.

  • Tomorrow: all acronyms are bad (which is also a lie, but we’ll discuss why).
  • Friday: the worst acronyms ever. (not a lie. these are really bad).

The whole NOMO series:

Government abbreviations in one word: NOMO!

As an Ottawa naming and brand strategy consultant, order I once thought the technology industry was the world’s biggest offender in the realm of unhelpful abbreviations. But then I started working with the Canadian federal government…. alphabet soup everywhere. My answer in one word: NOMO!

NOMO

The problem with acronyms / abbreviations / initialisms / alphabet soup

So there it was: “Governments MIA when it comes to good acronyms” – one of my biggest PPPs (Personal Pet Peeves) being addressed right on the front page of yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen. The article is a useful introduction to the importance of, doctor and hair-pulling frustration involved with, sick unhelpful abbreviations and insider short-hand in government.

The article even shows awareness at the political level from the same party that once called itself CCRAP. But it doesn’t go far enough.

As a taxpayer, I’ve had enough trouble navigating my way through the small range of government services I actually use. But as a consultant whose job it is to help fix brand communication problems, I’ve been right in the middle of the tangled thicket of jargon and shorthand.

Client: Your CV is impressive: PMRA, TBS, PWGSC…
Me: Great! so we can work together?
Client: Maybe, but the DG and the ADM might RFP, so PMO, PCO, and TBS are Cc-ed. CRA, DND, and PHAC as well…
Me: Uh, right.
Client: So as an SME SP without SC…
Me: I’m SOL?

And that’s before we actually get to work. Once I do, my consulting task is usually to explain existing services and programs in plain language, as I’ve done with Public Works and Government Services Canada (TPSGC-PWGSC), Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS-SCT),  Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA-ARLA), and others. But I can’t do that until I’ve gone through the lengthy process of myself figuring out the thing I’m supposed to be explaining, (so the PMBB isn’t the same as the NMAO?) and then making sure that my clients can in turn understand and explain it in the simplest possible terms – without shorthand.

At other times, I’ve actually had the joyous opportunity to name, or better yet un-name or re-name, a government entity. For example, a few years ago, I helped Industry Canada launch a new coast-to-coast service for business, which we called simply “Canada Business”. A boring name perhaps, but the intent couldn’t be plainer, and even better, doesn’t need to be abbreviated (“CanBiz” and “CB” were rejected early in the process).

Why the terms don’t help

But in trying to talk about this problem, the word “acronym” itself is one of the problems. So is“initialism”. So is “abbreviation”. I’ve tried sorting through this with a glossary at wordie.com. But I apologize if it’s still confusing.

And to technically-minded bureaucrats, these words have such specific definitions, and are so widely abused, that the debate always gets gleefully sidetracked into the debate over which term applies to which unhelpful short-form. Is FINTRAC an initialism? Is PHAC an acronym? Should we name our new program CANPAPHTHPT?

The average citizen says: “WTHC” (Who The Heck Cares)?

My modest proposal:

So I say we short-circuit the debate with one new word that describes the whole range of unwieldy shortenings:

NOMONYM: (NOUN) any unhelpful short-form, nickname, abbreviation, acronym, initialism, jargon, or insider buzz-term.

I created the word by (helpfully) abbreviating the phrase “NO More Obscure Nomenclature!” Although “NO-MOre-NYMs” works just as well.

In common usage, I recommend that this term be further shortened to “NOMO” and shouted loudly at government seminars, workshops, and brainstorming sessions.

Usage examples for “NOMO”:

  • Scenario 1: CRA needs a TTB from the WTH before you get an XYZ.
  • Response: all the people shout “NOMO!”
  • Scenario 2: government announces BPH moves RPHCAN to TLA.
  • Response: all the people shout “NOMO!”
  • Scenario 3: the DND/CF CEFCOM JTF-Afg and TFK BGen of ISAF, launches Operation ROOB, UNYIP, JANOOBI (I’m not making that up)
  • Response: all the people shout “NOMO!”

Use NOMO as a noun, a verb, an adjective, whatever you like. But shout it loudly, so it is heard throughout government boardrooms, corridors, brainstorming sessions – anywhere a NOMO might rear its ugly head.

And as the movement spreads, we go through the whole portfolio of government agencies, services, and terminology, weeding out NOMOs wherever we find them.

Perhaps then government can do the one thing that citizens need most:

C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.E.

The whole NOMO series: