Brands play catch-up at Microsoft
In what appears to be another instance of brands playing catch-up to technology, Microsoft watchers and MS employees are pointing to potential customer confusion between the new Windows Live brand (now in beta) and Microsoft’s established MSN brand. The two online brands overlap in many areas, and address the same set of customers.
At present, it’s not clear how the two brands will co-exist, or if the older MSN brand will be retired. Windows Live is the more dynamic platform (AJAX, software as a service), and represents Microsoft’s online business future. MSN is the brand that millions of Microsoft customers have used for an array of online programs (Hotmail, Messenger, etc.) and for online content (automotive, sports, financial).
Hotmail, Messenger and other MSN programs are being revamped and re-branded as part of Windows Live.
Other reports say Microsoft may re-brand MSN as a content-driven “Microsoft Media Network.” This would add another brand and a draw a line between online content and services. However, much of the Live platform tends to blur such distinctions through its strong focus on access and feeds.
Microsoft’s challenge is to migrate customers to a new brand context that empowers customer choice and action. For Microsoft, the question is whether the brand will add real customer value, or be a last-minute kludge that leaves customers in the air.
Potential brand confusion is a critical issue for Microsoft. The company is competing head-to-head with Yahoo, AOL and Google in a high-stakes battle for market leadership. This is a battle of brands as much as it is a battle of technologies. If you come to market without a fully-baked brand strategy (architecture, platforms, programs and identities), and without a clear idea of the customer value you plan to deliver, you run the risk of confusing customers and the market. You also leave openings for competitors.
Here’s a rule worth remembering: In brands, there is no beta.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
[...] Dare and Scoble make some good points. I’ve touched on Microsoft’s brand quandaries here, here, and here, and obliquely in my post Brands are code. [...]