3. Netflix
It takes time to build an effective brand and much, much longer to establish it as recognisable in the mind of a large body of consumers.
Netflix had done the hard work. It had built more than a decade of brand recognition as pretty much the only place you would go to for DVDs in the post.
So, what did it do in 2010? It split its DVD mail-out and streaming services into two separate businesses, renaming the former Qwikster. The result was a huge public outcry, prompting a swift retreat.
4. iSnack 2.0
Setting up a competition can be a good way to reach out to customers and let them engage meaningfully with your business.
Kraft thought it was onto a winner in 2009 when it decided to ask the public to choose the name of its new Vegemite variant. Nearly 50,000 suggestions flooded in. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, the decision to pick out iSnack 2.0 is what went wrong. The name provoked widespread derision, to the point that a website called Names That Are Better Than iSnack 2.0 was launched.
Kraft admitted it was “surprised” by the backlash which, in itself, is fairly surprising, given that the use of the term “2.0” beyond 2004 is almost unforgiveable and probably wouldn’t have registered with hard core Vegemite fans even back then.
5. Aol
It’s easy to feel a bit sorry for Aol. In some ways, the business should be seen as an internet pioneer. Instead, it’s viewed as a fusty relic that makes even Yahoo! seem cutting edge.
In a recent attempt to modernise, AOL became Aol and overhauled its logo, coming up with a number of varying backgrounds to add a “dynamic” edge to the brand.
This move was lost in translation in as much as Aol is trying to talk the language of Google. But instead of altering an instantly recognisable brand at special times of the year, Aol went all out in creating a flurry of new looks at once. The end result is a little confusing.