All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

Voices

Voices

from other Web sites

Microsoft’s Dead Naming Strategy

James Joaquin

We’ve forgotten Microsoft Bob, we’ve forgiven Microsoft .NET, but how on earth can we decipher Microsoft Windows Live?

As an investor in consumer-technology companies, I look for products and services that provide value and entertainment to people in a clear and simple way. Part of that clarity comes in the form of naming and branding. But Microsoft’s current “Live” branding strategy is the antithesis of good consumer branding, delivering a dizzying array of Microsoft brand and sub-brand combinations that are bound to perplex the average PC user.

A word about sub-brands: As companies grow, they often need to create sub-brands to encompass a wide range of product families. For example, you probably know that Sony VAIO means computer and Sony Walkman means portable music player; both examples of successful Sony sub-brands. When a company spawns too many sub-brands, however, things get confusing. How many consumers understand the difference between Sony WEGA and Sony BRAVIA televisions?

Microsoft has had long-standing success with two consumer sub-brands: Windows and Office. Over the years we’ve come to understand clearly that Windows is the software that makes our computers run, and Office is the collection of desktop applications that enables us to do useful things with our computers. Enter the disruptive force of the Internet. Now, any computer running any operating system with any standards-based Web browser can do useful things using Web-based applications. Microsoft has made huge efforts to stay relevant with Web-based apps and services, but it has created a branding mess along the way.

In August 1995, Microsoft launched MSN to compete primarily with America Online and also other portals. Over the last 11-plus years, Microsoft has added an array of content channels and consumer services to MSN, including the acquisition of Hotmail for free Web-based email. This positioned MSN as the brand for online, in-browser (and instant messaging) consumer experiences and left Windows and Office as the brands for desktop consumer experiences. That has all changed with Microsoft’s new Windows Live products.

The rollout of the “Live” sub-brand has involved rebranding all of the previously MSN-branded Web services, leaving MSN.com focused on a wide range of content channels. MSN Hotmail, MSN Messenger and MSN Spaces have become Windows Live Hotmail, Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live Spaces, respectively. MSN becomes static content and Windows Live becomes active services.

Makes sense at first glance, right?

But wait, there’s more. Microsoft has rolled out a family of subscription services for small businesses to build, host and advertise their company online called Microsoft Office Live. It has also released a free desktop email application, replacing Outlook Express, called Windows Live Mail (see Katherine Boehret’s detailed review in The Mossberg Solution here).

This has to be disorienting to consumers. Microsoft is crossing a dangerous line, diluting the clarity of its Windows and Office sub-brands and spreading the “Live” brand so thin it won’t be able to establish a clear position in consumers’ minds.

So, as best as I can tell from the company’s muddled and ever-changing naming strategy, here is a map of major Microsoft consumer brands and product names in computing (leaving out Xbox, Zune, MSNBC, etc.) where I think it stands today:

msft-diagram-1.jpg

Let’s quickly contrast that to Google’s branding strategy for consumer Web services:

googdiagram-final.jpg

For the most part, Google has stuck to a time-tested formula: Brand + Descriptive Word = Product Name. This reinforces the Google brand and helps consumers understand that a product like Google Desktop is actually for use on your PC desktop. The two notable exceptions are Gmail, which stands apart as a top-level brand of its own, and the recently released iGoogle, which breaks every branding rule in the book (imagine Apple launching a new product called iApple).

How could Microsoft learn from Google’s branding simplicity? Here are my five suggestions to move “Live” in that direction:

  1. Stop using Windows to brand Web services that run on any computer in any browser. Simply brand those “Microsoft Live.”
  2. Don’t add “Live” to the names of products beginning with “Vista” or “Office”–ever. Not even one. I’m serious. Let Vista and Office continue to mean PC Desktop and help differentiate Live to mean Web.
  3. Rename “Microsoft Office Live Basics” to “Microsoft Live Business Site.” See No. 2 above.
  4. Rename “Windows Live OneCare” to “Windows OneCare.” Remember, it only works on a Windows PC.
  5. Rename “Windows Live Mail” to “Windows Mail 2.0″ and bundle it with future releases of Vista. I know it seems short and simple, but that’s the whole idea.

James Joaquin is a longtime Silicon Valley entrepreneur and executive, working with companies including When.com, Ofoto, Xoom and Apple. He is now a venture partner at Bridgescale Partners.

Comments

  1. Sad but true. The chaotic, Darwinian organizational structure that Microsoft has established has its advantages. Alignment is not one of them.

    Posted by Ted Barnett at June 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
  2. At some point, when a “branded house” has lost its lustre or tied itself too closely with it’s primary product, I wonder if a “house of brands” doesn’t make more sense.

    Microsoft has created an indelible impression around the world with its brand. It’s name is synonymous with an operating system and office productivity software (as you point out, James), and that impedes the growth of the other businesses inside that are trying to grow. The company is competing with it’s own sub-brand, and that comes at the cost of opportunity. The parent is holding back the children.

    Coke doesn’t try to sub-brand Fanta, Sprite or Fanta. MS: Let Live live on it’s own, go forth and prosper – but give her every ounce of support – like there’s no tomorrow.

    Posted by Sean Malone at June 18th, 2007 at 10:05 am
  3. The “iGoogle” brand has one advantage that most brands don’t: “Google” possesses Verb Status in the popular venacular, that is, people recognize the action “to google” … thus a name that would severly dilute most brands could work for google by creating a self-affirmative meme within its consumer impressions.

    Posted by Tunde Whitten at June 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
  4. The fundamental issue around branding at Microsoft is that product groups get to plan and name products in advance of a grand scheme to unify them. By the team corporate marketing catches up, it’s too late.

    It’s even more complicated that noted here: there also Live Meeting http://office.microsoft.com/en.....fault.aspx (previously Placeware) and Live Communications Server http://office.microsoft.com/en.....11033.aspx.

    Some of the confusion around LCS may get cleared up with the next release, artfully now called Office Communication Server 2007. Note that neither Live Meeting nor LCS is directly connected to Office Live.

    Unless Microsoft takes a different, unified approach to product planning, not really in the DNA of the company, the branding confusion will remain a symptom of deeper issues.

    Posted by Brian Goffman at June 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.

Featured Video

About Voices

This is a section of the All Things Digital Web site featuring posts from around the Web, from other Dow Jones properties and also original pieces we solicit. The section is now explicitly labeled that it comes "from other Web sites."

We are fully aware of the controversies around how linking and aggregating is done on the Web and we, in no way, are attempting to "scrape" original content created by others. Instead, regarding third-party posts, we are trying to point readers of this site to other posts from around the Web that we admire and are trying to do so in the quickest manner possible.

The Internet is full of terrific content that is not ours and we want to help our readers find it by making editorial suggestions--Look, Mom, no algorithm!--of posts we think are worth their time.

That is why we have made even more changes to Voices to ensure we do this in the most transparent and timely way. While we don't expect that everyone will agree with our policies, we have made changes that reflect our intent in pointing to content outside our site.

So here is exactly what we do:

Read more »

About the Site

Because the site is wholly owned by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, we aim to adhere to the journalistic standards of the best of the mainstream media. But, because it is run autonomously as a small online startup, we aim to exhibit the fresh thinking and nimbleness of the best of the new media. We want to be first, and sassy, but also well sourced and accurate. We will offer lots of opinion and analysis, but plenty of fact as well.

Read more »