Mary Jo Foley from ZDNet has
done an excellent
analysis of Microsoft's Windows Live brand. Her conclusions are quite damning of
Microsoft's marketing department:
"Problem No. 1: Live isn't a consistently applied term: Sometimes it refers to services (like Windows Live Messenger), sometimes to desktop applications (a k a Windows Live Search Preview), and sometimes to "destinations" (such as Windows Live Gallery).
Then, there's the whole branding/rebranding
messchallenge. As quickly as Microsoft fields a new Live beta, it renames it. Is it MSN Hotmail, Windows Live Mail or Windows Live Hotmail? Windows Search 4, Windows Live Search Center, OneView or Windows Live Search Preview? (Yep, those are all codenames for one thing.) There also are the ungainly names, such as "Windows Live Search for Windows Mobile."(I'm not even going to touch on the fact that the term "Live" is being applied inconsistently across Microsoft product groups. Xbox Live, Office Live, Dynamics CRM Live and Windows Live have next-to-nothing in common. Why is that?)"
Also see the LiveSide blog for a comprehensive list of Windows Live services.
What's really confusing me, is why hasn't Microsoft fixed this yet? I wrote about the brand confusion over Windows Live over a year ago. At the time the theory was that Live = services; MSN = content. But there are too many overlaps between services and content in this Web era for that to be convincing. So what is the situation one year later....
Here is how Windows Live is currently described on the Ideas homepage:
"Your online world gets better when everything works simply and effortlessly together. That's the basic idea behind Windows Live."
It's explained in more detail on this page:
"Windows Live™ is a new set of Internet software and services designed to work together seamlessly to put you in control of the information, personal connections, and interests you care about."
Here is the visual explanation:
In a nutshell then, Windows Live is any Microsoft product or service which requires an Internet connection. Which is just about everything these days.
And that's the problem - with almost all consumer (and increasingly enterprise) software and services having an online component nowadays, it's a very broad a set of products to bring under one umbrella term. But perhaps that's more a reflection of how broad a business Microsoft is circa 2007.
I think Windows Live is a good enough brand, signifying Microsoft's set of Internet-connected software and services. But right now the name is being applied inconsistently and is also leading to unwieldy brand names (Windows Live for Windows Mobile being the latest example). In the final analysis, that old Web app adage applies: keep it simple! Both with product names and the overall message, that Live = Internet-connected.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Windows Live Confusion - One Year On.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1965
Here is a summary of the week's Web Tech action on Read/WriteWeb. Top Web News It was a relatively quiet week in Web news. There were various mobile announcements from the 3GSM conference in Spain and some product releases (e.g.... Read More
Written by Emre Sokullu and edited by Richard MacManus Windows Vista is finally out and along with that Microsoft seems to have kick-started its Vista-Live joint initiative. This initiative aims to push Microsoft's new web properties in tandem with the... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Great analysis Richard. Microsoft recently announced that they are going to keep the "Hotmail" brand over "Microsoft Live Mail". The whole "Live" effort is being pushed by Ray Ozzie who wants the internet to be Microsoft's new domain. The problem, though, is that when companies put their brand name on all their products, they ends up confusing the consumer.
The point is, one brand name stands for one product. Imagine what would happen if Procter and Gamble abbreviated all their products with one brand name. It would be hell for marketers; "P&G Tide", "P&G Ariel", "P&G Bounty", "P&G and Mr. Proper", "P&G Lenor". It just doesn't work. One brand name means one thing to the consumer.
- Jawad Shuaib
Posted by: Jawad Shuaib | February 14, 2007 5:17 AMjawad.exe@gmail.com
Two other flaws:
1) Throwing away perfectly good brands for the generic, awkward-sounding "Windows Live". For the majority of tweens and teens, "MSN" is MSN Messenger. WLM means nothing to them.
2) Brand overload. Look at any list of MS products, whether it be on a webpage or in your Start Menu, and it's starting to get difficult to tell things apart. All you see are half a dozen products starting with the phrase "Windows Live".
Posted by: quanta | February 14, 2007 7:21 AMExcellent points Jawad and quanta! Perhaps it's another case of Microsoft trying to follow Google and Yahoo's lead (both put their company name in front of most of their products), but Windows Live is just too long and clumsy a name to use repeatedly.
I still think the Windows Live concept is great, but as you say when it comes to branding products with it -- it's falling flat.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | February 14, 2007 11:24 AMExcellent article. This seems to be the story of Microsoft: throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks. Windows Mobile/Pocket PC/Handheld PC, the whole "Live" brand, Cairo... just to name a few.
Posted by: Julio Angel Ortiz | February 14, 2007 4:39 PMGreat article here. Even though the integration is being emphasised, can anyone else see any other forms of integration besides Live ID (passport).
I am writing a dissertation on the Windows Live study and would love to hear you thoughts so please visit www.windowslivestudy.spaces.live.com
Posted by: James B | February 19, 2007 4:45 AM