Opinion | What’s in a Name? Musk/Twitter Edition

I’ve (well-managed) arthritis and take ache reducers every single day. I usually purchase generic acetaminophen; however many individuals nonetheless purchase brand-name Tylenol, though it prices way more.

There’s a long-running debate amongst economists about why persons are prepared to pay a premium for title manufacturers. Some emphasize ignorance — one influential examine discovered that well being professionals are extra doubtless than the general public at giant to purchase generic painkillers, as a result of they notice that they’re simply as efficient as title manufacturers. Others recommend that there could also be a rational calculation concerned: The standard of title manufacturers could also be extra dependable, as a result of the house owners of those manufacturers have a popularity to protect. It doesn’t should be either-or; the story behind the model premium could rely on the product.

What’s clear is that model names that for no matter motive encourage buyer loyalty have actual worth to the corporate that owns them and shouldn’t be modified casually.

So what the heck does Elon Musk, the proprietor of TAFKAT — the app previously referred to as Twitter — assume he’s doing, altering the platform’s title to X, with a brand new brand many individuals, myself included, discover troubling?

It’s essential to tell apart between company rebranding — altering the official title of an organization — and altering the names of the corporate’s merchandise. Google renamed itself Alphabet, presumably to convey to buyers its aspiration to be greater than a search engine, however the search engine itself remains to be named Google. Philip Morris renamed itself Altria, presumably partly to decrease its perceived affiliation with lung most cancers, however its clients nonetheless smoke Marlboros.

Altering product names is extra problematic, as a result of it dangers dropping buyer loyalty, so it tends to occur solely when there’s an actual downside with the present title. It was undoubtedly a good suggestion to vary the title of Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda to 7Up. It’s truly outstanding that it took PepsiCo so lengthy to appreciate that in an America that has modified (for the higher), the Aunt Jemima model title needed to go. However absent such good causes, wise companies maintain the model names their clients maintain shopping for.

So what was fallacious with Twitter as a model title? Nothing, so far as I can inform. It was friendly-sounding and a bit humorous, and resonated with the function of the platform as a spot for individuals to chatter about quite a lot of topics. The Twitter brand was additionally high quality — distinctive, immediately recognizable and with none apparent detrimental connotations.

However Musk has nonetheless ditched all of that in favor of X, a harsh-sounding title with no relationship to what the platform does.

Moreover, the brand new brand — a barely embellished model of the letter X — is problematic in a number of methods. It most likely can’t be trademarked, as a result of it’s kind of indistinguishable from a lowercase x in an present font. Many TAFKAT customers say that they’re embarrassed by the brand, which makes them really feel as in the event that they’re visiting a porn website. My response was a bit totally different. To me, and I’m certain others, the brand new brand has the vibes of an authoritarian political image, just like the Z emblem of Russians invading Ukraine — or another historic symbols I’m certain you may consider.

Fashionable companies usually give a variety of thought to selecting model names and logos. So what was Musk pondering together with his renaming of TAFKAT? It’s actually onerous to see any enterprise rationale for junking a superbly good model identification and changing it with a reputation and brand nearly everybody finds off-putting.

Effectively, the whole lot we all know means that he mainly wasn’t pondering. For some motive he has at all times had a factor concerning the letter X — his rocket firm is SpaceX and he tried to get PayPal to rename itself X.com (and was ousted as C.E.O. instantly afterward, maybe as a result of his colleagues thought it seemed like, sure, a porn website). And that terrible brand didn’t undergo the same old design course of (Twitter’s chook brand developed over seven years). It was casually outsourced — he requested his followers to recommend symbols and selected one he preferred.

However then, Musk’s sudden change of brand name title and image, with no clear rationale, suits the sample of the whole lot else he’s performed at TAFKAT.

He clearly suffers from a extreme case of Tech Bro Syndrome, that bizarre mixture of hubris and conspiracy theorizing so prevalent in his social set. He accused Twitter of censoring conservatives, ignoring the truth that in a MAGA-ridden nation any try to restrict the unfold of harmful misinformation will hit the best tougher than the left. He bought Twitter within the perception that his private brilliance might simply make the corporate worthwhile, no want for onerous enthusiastic about enterprise technique.

And he’s been flailing wildly ever since.

Will the Xification of Twitter lastly be a flail too far? Social networks are typically particularly sturdy as a result of — like worldwide currencies — they profit from self-reinforcement: Individuals use them as a result of different individuals use them. It would take many unhealthy choices to push TAFKAT to the tipping level the place individuals abandon it for an additional platform.

However Musk is engaged on it.