Millions (billions?) trust Facebook too. Yet, Facebook kept the Instagram brand and it paid off.

Facebook keeps Instagram (and Whatsapp) as a form of market segmentation. Just like how Proctor & Gamble sells eleven (!) different brands of laundry detergent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Procter_%26_Gamble_bra...

Presumably they capture more of the overall market for detergent that way. Maybe the same mechanisms do not apply to retail in general.

Yeah, it was explained to me once by a bid for shelf space. If there are 2 brands, a new one gets 1/3rd of the space, if there are 15, then a new one gets 1/16.

Therefore making P&G more money.

At the time of acquisition, I think the Instagram brand was more popular and recognized among users than Jet.com. Jet.com didn't become a phenomenon before Walmart acquired it. Instagram was already extremely popular when FB bought it.

Instagram had like less than 20mn users when FB acquired it.

If you peruse the HN comments from the time, many of them were convinced that this was a waste of money (though not the top comment, interestingly enough): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840

Brand trust goes both ways.

It seems plausible that as walmart.com becomes better known as a good alternative to amazon for straightforward items, it might actually make people trust the walmart brand more - and put more shoppers in stores.

I don't think it's a matter of trust so much as classism. I know some people who simply won't go into a Walmart because they don't see themselves as the kind of people who would shop at Walmart.

Different situation. Facebook and Instagram are social brands that signal which demo you'll find on each platform (at least at the time of acquisition).

Instagram's branding/demo was a big part of what FB was after.

*In USA.

Forbes ranks it as the #26 most valuable brand in the world: https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/. Just because it's an almost entirely American brand doesn't change anything GP said.

Interesting it's so low, considering they are the highest revenue company in the world (as of 2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...

The brand is absent from most countries.

So is it NOT one of the most valuable brands in the world then? Despite Forbes' list of valuations? What exactly in the original comment about the strength of the brand do you even think is incorrect?

Depends how you look at it. I'd say that if you value brand based on its recognition and not on its revenue/profit then Walmart is not one of the most valuable brands in the world. Just looking at the Forbes list i really doubt that MasterCard is less recognised around the world as SAP or Walmart, or Home Depot (operates in 3 countries) is more recognisable as Gillette or Ford... Forbes list should really be called "Worlds most valuable companies" not brands.

The original comment isn't about the value of the brand according to Forbes, but the strength of the brand.

I just say that the brand is strong only in USA but not so much outside. Not many people care about or even know the brand in most countries. So it's not a lot of strength worldwide even though it's valuable in Forbes and very strong in USA. Coca-Cola or Apple are much more strong worldwide.

As an American I have never purchased anything from Timmies or Tesco but I consider them strong brands.

Oh you named 2 stronger international brands. Obviously jet.com should have been kept then. Way to completely miss the forest for the trees.

Sorry I didn't want to upset you.

I'm not upset, I'm just absolutely baffled that there's such disagreement with the idea that you can be one of the best in the world at something without doing it all over the world.

> The brand is absent from most countries.

Who cares? Countries are not all equal. This is one of those "Either the sun will come up in the morning, or it won't. Two choices; fifty-fifty" arguments.

> Just because it's an almost entirely American brand doesn't change anything GP said.

I simply disagree that's a strong brand worldwide because it's only a USA brand.

No one even said "strong brand worldwide" they said "one of the strongest brands in the world". Does a professional athlete have to compete overseas to be recognized as being exceptionally good at their sport, if they absolutely dominate in their home country, and their home country happens to be very significant in that sport? If you're going to get hung up on details, don't reword them.

Would someone who qualifies for the Olympics for the first time from a powerhouse country not qualify as "one of the best in the world"?

Walmart has stores everywhere but the North & South Poles. There's a reason they employ over 2.3 million people.

Yeah it’s like milk tons of people drink it but it’s for babies.