Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+
by bambax on Sunday August 02, 2015 @05:20PM
(#9992517)
> The name, Google Plus, didn't help.
Yes! What a stupid, simplistic and limited name. Most product names with Google are stupid ("Play"?!??) but Plus has to win the stupidity contest.
I remember when Vivendi's CEO invented "Vivendi Plus" (in 2000 or so) and even registered vivendiplus.com just to show how unprepared the company was (at the time of the announcement, it was a big surprise at headquarters...)
Brand extension never works, NEVER. There are many books written about this subject, one of the best being "Positionning" by Al Ries.
Google Video failed, Youtube thrived; there is no "Google mobile", but Android is doing pretty well, thank you very much. Gmail is not exactly "Google Mail".
Google Maps is a counter example, maybe because it feels like an extension of search.
Yes! What a stupid, simplistic and limited name. Most product names with Google are stupid ("Play"?!??) but Plus has to win the stupidity contest.
I remember when Vivendi's CEO invented "Vivendi Plus" (in 2000 or so) and even registered vivendiplus.com just to show how unprepared the company was (at the time of the announcement, it was a big surprise at headquarters...)
Brand extension never works, NEVER. There are many books written about this subject, one of the best being "Positionning" by Al Ries.
Google Video failed, Youtube thrived; there is no "Google mobile", but Android is doing pretty well, thank you very much. Gmail is not exactly "Google Mail".
Google Maps is a counter example, maybe because it feels like an extension of search.