> And, since Windows RT doesn't look or feel like prior versions of Windows and doesn't run applications written for them either, why call it Windows at all?
This is called "brand extension". Brand extension is a crime against marketing and against common sense.
The reasoning goes like this:
- we have a strong brand
- we have a new product
- no one will know this new product exists unless we spend huge amounts of advertising to inform the public about its existence
- oh but wait! we have this strong brand! why not attach the new product to the existing brand, to jump start it?!
- (and BTW, our strong but old brand can only benefit from this hot new cool product being attached to it)
At first it seems to work: the new product grows faster with brand extension than without.
But very fast, people become confused about which is which and what does what, and prefer two uniquely branded and well-positioned competing products against the whole "line offering".
The "hot new product" usually ends up polluting, weakening, if not killing the parent brand, instead of rejuvenating it.
This is exactly what is happening with Windows RT.
Microsoft isn't the only culprit however. "Google Play" is a similar move. It hasn't started to hurt Google yet, probably because it didn't catch, and people continue to call the Android app store... well, "the Android App Store".
"Brand extension is a crime against marketing and against common sense"
Agreed and it's an example of something Apple has gotten very right. Apple is the banner brand.
What is Apple? It's a hardware device manufacturer with mostly excellent software and services. You buy an Apple X and you're buying (post Mac but still applies):
iPod.
iPod smaller.
iPod much smaller.
iPod with a touch screen.
iPod with a touch screen and phone.
iPod with a touch screen, internet and much bigger.
iPod with a touch screen, internet and slightly bigger.
Some thinner, some fatter, some with cameras, some without.
They've almost never stumbled in extending the brand and creating new sub-brands because the initial umbrella brand isn't 'used in vain' or diluted.
What is Google? Google is an ad supported AI interface with occasionally excellent hardware, and genius software services. You buy a Google X and you're buying? It remains to be seen (although I suspect it's coming) what exactly the 'Google Nexus' is.
What is Microsoft? Microsoft makes Windows and Office, enterprise software and is a sticker on the side of other people's products. When you buy Microsoft Windows X you get??
I'd say the iPod Nano is the only device Apple has really screwed up in terms of a consistent message. First it has a clickwheel, then it doesn't. Oh look there's a camera, and now it's gone. It's small enough to stick in a watch wristband - but wait, now there's a touchscreen and it sorta looks like it runs apps except it doesn't.
Totally incoherent. I loved the first few generations with a clickwheel, they were great to use on the go. I have no idea what the point of the latest model is.
Red Bull had that problem, they created Red Bull Cola and everyone thought it is a mix of Red Bull and cola.
It actually is just a cola, and a pretty good one with 100% bio ingredients. People just didn't get that, the caffeine junkies were disappointed and other people didn't try it.
Such an obvious mistake, "Red Bull" is synonymous with the drink.
This is called "brand extension". Brand extension is a crime against marketing and against common sense.
The reasoning goes like this:
- we have a strong brand
- we have a new product
- no one will know this new product exists unless we spend huge amounts of advertising to inform the public about its existence
- oh but wait! we have this strong brand! why not attach the new product to the existing brand, to jump start it?!
- (and BTW, our strong but old brand can only benefit from this hot new cool product being attached to it)
At first it seems to work: the new product grows faster with brand extension than without.
But very fast, people become confused about which is which and what does what, and prefer two uniquely branded and well-positioned competing products against the whole "line offering".
The "hot new product" usually ends up polluting, weakening, if not killing the parent brand, instead of rejuvenating it.
This is exactly what is happening with Windows RT.
Microsoft isn't the only culprit however. "Google Play" is a similar move. It hasn't started to hurt Google yet, probably because it didn't catch, and people continue to call the Android app store... well, "the Android App Store".
But rest assured it will come back to bite them.