Why Twitter users feel betrayed by change – 8/7/2023 – Tech

Goodbye Twitter, hello X. The move doesn’t sit well with many of its most loyal users, and there may be reasons for that.

Many users who accessed Twitter on July 23 found a black X in the corner of their browser tab, in place of the blue bird they used to see.

Elon Musk, tech entrepreneur and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of the social media platform, surprised almost everyone by announcing plans to rebrand Twitter, which he bought for $44 billion in October 2022. The company is now called X.

After announcing that the communications platform will be pivoted to include a variety of future services — payments, games and more — Musk also said that eventually “all the birds” and Twitter’s branding would be retired.

The day after the announcement, Twitter’s sign came out at the company’s headquarters in San Francisco, California (it has since installed a large X-shaped sign on top of the building).

The move drew derision, scrutiny and confusion — even ire — from many Twitter users and technology industry insiders. Technology journalist Casey Newton described Musk’s approach to owning Twitter as “a prolonged act of cultural vandalism”.

“I think there was a real affinity with Twitter and the brand from its power users,” says Orlando Baeza of California, chief revenue officer at Flock Freight and former marketing executive and brand lead at Buzzfeed, Paramount, Activision , Adidas and Nike.

“This is a dramatic and unexpected turn. The brand identity has gone from warm and welcoming to dark and members-only. And to top it off, it all happened overnight. Literally.”

Twitter is not alone in changing the name and iconography of its highly recognizable and even meaningful brand. Musk’s move parallels recent transformation efforts like Facebook to Meta, or HBO to Max. But according to brand experts, some brand pivots are more successful than others — and there are reasons for that.

‘People don’t like change’

Companies change brands—this is how they innovate and adapt.

The main goals of a makeover, says Maggie Sause, director of go-to-market strategies at New York-based branding agency Red Antler, is usually to improve a company’s recognition and reputation and signal a shift in its focus and investments.

However, the change is almost always shocking to some consumers. Sause says people often feel emotionally invested in brands, especially the products they use in their daily lives.

“It’s almost as if we’re saying, ‘How dare you make this decision without consulting me?’ It can almost feel like an act of betrayal.”

Zach Dioneda, vice president of brand marketing at fintech Public.com, agrees that people can take rebrands personally. “There will be people who feel like it’s an affront to them as a loyal user,” he says.

“People don’t like change.”

However, experts say there are ways to make brand transformations more palatable, with end users front and center. Among these best practices are pivots that consider the habits, wants, and values ​​of key users and customers, and are generally data-driven and researched.

One example is Massachusetts-based Dunkin Brands Group, Inc., which in 2018 announced it was renaming its flagship brand Dunkin’ Donuts, founded in 1950. They would drop the word Donuts from their moniker and iconography, and henceforth would just be Dunkin’, to represent a wider range of food and beverage offerings.

As with other corporate transformations, the name and logo change did not go over well with all consumers at first. However, Sause says he views Dunkin’ rebranding as a huge success because it was based on data and user response studies—especially since the brand had so much nostalgia and consumer affinity due to its longevity.

The renovation was “the result of in-depth audience and market research to expand to new audiences without isolating or dissuading the current one,” she says.

That, she adds, is one of the reasons Twitter’s rebranding to X has not been as successful, leaving core and dedicated users feeling left out.

Without consulting them, she believes it “seems like a black hole promise, full of things Musk can do”, with no evidence that there is a clear plan to implement any of the new functions he has rolled out to consumers. This, she thinks, is largely alienating to her dedicated user base.

Red Antler Executive Creative Director Michael Ciancio also says it’s important that rebrands reflect the consumer’s interests and values ​​— things they want to associate with. He believes that some users have found the transition to X “a proud moment [para Musk]in which a new person at the helm, who has a history of making grand gestures in the service of his own reputation”, took over. And that made the pivot a “shock”.

He adds: “It’s a complete rejection of the ethos and tradition [da marca]”.

Despite the backlash, Musk has given no indication that he will reverse the decision – for now, he doubled the mark, removing the rest of the Twitter name and bluebirds from the site, which remained on July 23 and during the following week.

There is precedent, however, for brands that have made new transformations based on negative user feedback.

For example, US retail chain JCPenney’s rebranding to JCP was widely rejected by shoppers who had been loyal to the department store for years, prompting executives to revert the name in 2013; global weight-management company WeightWatchers made the same decision in 2018 after consumers backtracked on its mission pivot and subsequent rebranding to WW.

Overall, Sause says it’s hard to build the brand prestige that Twitter has — it’s even become a verb in common parlance. Despite the company’s rocky patch, “its brand is still a powerful asset,” but she believes they weakened it with the name change.

‘Opposition to change tends to dissipate’

For all the emotional reactions to the sudden changes, however, some experts say Twitter’s difficult transition to X may not be a long-term problem — at least from a corporate perspective.

“Most reactions are only temporary, and over time, opposition to change tends to dissipate,” says Kuram Zaman, founder and CEO of Fifth Tribe, a Washington, DC-based digital strategy and branding agency.

“We’ve seen this with Airbnb, whose logo redesign was ridiculed by users, or with Kia, whose logo caused confusion in the redesign. There’s a lot of discussion at the beginning of these changes — which may not necessarily be a bad thing — but customers eventually move on. The upside is that brand changes may be necessary and the negative responses will lessen over time.”

Baeza agrees. “I don’t have any evidence of consumer buying behavior changing to negative just because of a name change,” he says.

“So maybe all of this becomes media earned, with no real detriment, to kickstart the reinvention of the brand formerly known as Twitter. Maybe this is just the reinvention it needs to overcome the stagnant growth of the last few years.”

Indeed, while rival tech firm Meta’s rebranding drew initial criticism, the company’s revenue hit Wall Street targets in the second quarter of 2023, and Meta forecasts more growth.

Sause and Ciancio agree that there may be a concerted strategy behind Musk’s move, pointing to the timing of the announcement. It came shortly after Meta launched its new social platform, Threads, which at the time dominated the media cycle as the ‘Twitter Killer’.

“Maybe it’s part of the media strategy and he might change the logo again tomorrow,” says Ciancio, “but even if there isn’t a plan, he’s definitely changing the conversation.”

This text was originally published here.