Is Musk competing with Zuck for the worst branding ever?

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meta’s rebranding at least makes sense. The company has been more than Facebook for a long time, so collecting everything under a different umbrella isn’t too far fetched. Facebook still exists as a product, so they haven’t thrown away all the brand value. Google did kind of the same with Alphabet.

    Rebranding Twitter to X doesn’t make sense at all.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they’re not just re-branding. Twitter is now under some kind of corporate shell company. I haven’t seen much coverage of that, but my suspicion is that it’s intended to act as some kind of insulator to contain Twitter’s debts.

      Like when they break a company into pieces and put everyone’s debts and no assets into a single part and then that part declares bankruptcy and all the debt magically goes away, leaving everything else with lots of assets and no debts and a future that looks really rosy. I can’t help but think that this is something similar to that.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow, I wish I could split myself up into separate entities to bankrupt part of so that I can get away Scott free. But alas, I’m a real person, not a company with “personhood.”

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Especially because they bought a bunch of companies that weren’t Facebook. Another example is Google rebranding as Alphabet. Those make complete sense.