Skip to content

The Law and Policy Blog

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

Donate

You can support this independent law and policy commentary by PayPal

Subscribe

Please enter your email address to receive notifications of new stuff by me here and elsewhere.

Pages

  • About
  • Comments Policy

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Explaining a 31-month sentence for a tweet 27th May 2025
  • A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment 9th May 2025
  • How the Trump administration’s “shock and awe” approach has resulted in its litigation being shockingly awful 22nd April 2025
  • How the United States constitutional crisis is intensifying 17th April 2025
  • A note about injunctions in the context of the Abrego Garcia case 14th April 2025
  • How Trump is misusing emergency powers in his tariffs policy 10th April 2025
  • How Trump’s tariffs can be a Force Majeure event for some contracts 7th April 2025
  • The significance of the Wisconsin court election result 2nd April 2025
  • “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety 31st March 2025
  • A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal 27th March 2025
  • Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case 25th March 2025
  • Making sense of the Trump-Roberts exchange about impeachment 19th March 2025
  • Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case 18th March 2025
  • “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis 17th March 2025
  • Oh Canada 16th March 2025
  • Thinking about a revolution 5th March 2025
  • The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States 25th February 2025
  • The president who believes himself a king 23rd February 2025
  • Making sense of what is happening in the United States 18th February 2025
  • The paradox of the Billionaires saying that Court Orders have no value, for without Court Orders there could not be Billionaires 11th February 2025
  • Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional 4th February 2025
  • From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis? 1st February 2025
  • Solving the puzzle of why the case of Prince Harry and Lord Watson against News Group Newspapers came to its sudden end 25th January 2025
  • Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said 21st January 2025
  • A third and final post about the ‘Lettuce before Action’ of Elizabeth Truss 18th January 2025
  • Why the Truss “lettuce before action” is worse than you thought – and it has a worrying implication for free speech 17th January 2025
  • Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things 16th January 2025
  • Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time? 14th January 2025
  • Spiteful governments and simple contract law, a weak threatening letter, and a warning of a regulatory battle ahead 13th January 2025
  • A close look at Truss’s legal threat to Starmer – a glorious but seemingly hopeless cease-and-desist letter 9th January 2025
  • How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year – how the English state gave up on insisting the new year started on 25 March 1st January 2025
  • Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench 31st December 2024
  • “Twelfth Night Till Candlemas” – the story of a forty-year book-quest and of its remarkable ending 20th December 2024
  • An argument about Assisting Dying – matters of life and death need to be properly regulated by law, and not by official discretion 28th November 2024
  • The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion 18th November 2024
  • New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture 14th November 2024
  • The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next 8th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment 6th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment 5th November 2024
  • “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore 31st October 2024
  • Prisons and prisons-of-the-mind – how the biggest barrier to prisons reform is public opinion 28th October 2024
  • A blow against the “alternative remedies” excuse: the UK Supreme Court makes it far harder for regulators to avoid performing their public law duties 22nd October 2024
  • What explains the timing and manner of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal? 20th October 2024
  • Happy birthday, Supreme Court: the fifteenth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s highest court 1st October 2024
  • Words on the screen – the rise and (relative) fall of text-based social media: why journalists and lawyers on social media may not feel so special again 30th September 2024
  • Political accountability vs policy accountability: how our system of politics and government is geared to avoid or evade accountability for policy 24th September 2024
  • On writing – and not writing – about miscarriages of justice 23rd September 2024
  • Miscarriages of Justice: the Oliver Campbell case 21st September 2024
  • How Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris and Walz is a masterpiece of persuasive prose: a songwriter’s practical lesson in written advocacy 11th September 2024
  • Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney 7th September 2024
  • A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong 30th August 2024
  • Update – what is coming up. 29th August 2024
  • Shamima Begum – and ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ statelessness 21st August 2024
  • Lucy Letby and miscarriages of justice: some words of caution on why we should always be alert to the possibilities of miscarriages of justice 19th August 2024
  • This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X 17th August 2024
  • What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable 7th August 2024
  • How the criminal justice system deals with a riot 5th August 2024
  • The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? 26th July 2024
  • And out the other side? The possible return of serious people doing serious things in law and policy 10th July 2024
  • What if a parliamentary candidate did not exist? The latest odd constitutional law question which nobody has really thought of asking before 9th July 2024
  • The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome 8th July 2024
  • How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases 28th June 2024
  • What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance” 25th June 2024
  • Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people. 24th June 2024
  • The wrong gong 22nd June 2024
  • The public service of an “Enemy of the People” 22nd June 2024
  • Of majorities and “super-majorities” 21st June 2024
  • The strange omission in the Conservative manifesto: why is there no commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act? 12th June 2024
  • The predicted governing party implosion in historical and constitutional context 11th June 2024
  • Donald Trump is convicted – but it is now the judicial system that may need a good defence strategy 1st June 2024
  • The unwelcome weaponisation of police complaints as part of ordinary politics 31st May 2024
  • Thoughts on the calling of a general election – and on whether our constitutional excitements are coming to an end 29th May 2024
  • Another inquiry report, another massive public policy failure revealed 21st May 2024
  • On how regulating the media is hard – if not impossible – and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed 4th May 2024
  • Trump’s case – a view from an English legal perspective 24th April 2024
  • Law and lore, and state failure – the quiet collapse of the county court system in England and Wales 22nd April 2024
  • How the civil justice system forced Hugh Grant to settle – and why an alternative to that system is difficult to conceive 17th April 2024
  • Unpacking the remarkable witness statement of Johnny Mercer – a closer look at the extraordinary evidence put before the Afghan war crimes tribunal 25th March 2024
  • The curious incident of the Afghanistan war crimes statutory inquiry being set up 21st March 2024
  • A close look at the Donelan libel settlement: how did a minister make her department feel exposed to expensive legal liability? 8th March 2024
  • A close look at the law and policy of holding a Northern Ireland border poll – and how the law may shape what will be an essentially political decision 10th February 2024
  • How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts 30th January 2024
  • How the next general election in the United Kingdom is now less than a year away 29th January 2024
  • Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal? 16th January 2024
  • How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice 12th January 2024
  • The coming year: how the parameters of the constitution will shape the politics of 2024 1st January 2024
  • The coming constitutional excitements in the United States 31st December 2023
  • What is often left unsaid in complaints about pesky human rights law and pesky human rights lawyers 15th December 2023
  • A role-reversal? – a footnote to yesterday’s post 1st December 2023
  • The three elements of the Rwanda judgment that show how the United Kingdom government is now boxed in 30th November 2023
  • On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy 16th November 2023
  • The courts have already deflated the Rwanda policy, regardless of the Supreme Court judgment next Wednesday 10th November 2023
  • The extraordinary newspaper column of the Home Secretary – and its implications 9th November 2023
  • Drafts of history – how the Covid Inquiry, like the Leveson Inquiry, is securing evidence for historians that would otherwise be lost 1st November 2023
  • Proportionality is an incomplete legal concept 25th October 2023
  • Commissioner Breton writes a letter: a post in praise of the one-page formal document 11th October 2023
  • “Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023
  • COMING UP 23rd September 2023
  • Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency 9th September 2023
  • One year on from one thing, sixteen months on from another thing… 8th September 2023
  • What is a section 114 Notice? 7th September 2023
  • Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism 24th August 2023
  • Performative justice and coercion: thinking about coercing convicted defendants to hear their sentences 21st August 2023
  • Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process 15th August 2023
  • A note of caution for those clapping and cheering at the latest indictment of Donald Trump 8th August 2023

Archives

Masterdon link

Mastodon

The value of X – making sense of a re-branding, from a lawyer’s perspective

26th July 2023

*

Much – most – of the commentary about what Elon Musk is doing with the social media platform previously known as Twitter focuses on his personal role and decision-making.

But, as an intellectual exercise, let us de-personalise the matter and see what, if any, sense we can make of the re-branding of that particular platform.

And, for the sake of this post, let us assume the individual heading the platform to have the generic quality Y.

*

From the perspective of an information technology (IT) and intellectual property (IP) lawyer, a platform like Twitter is comprised of one or more things of value.

Sometimes the platform is rich in IT – there are processes and hardware and software which are distinct and significant and difficult to copy. Sometimes that IT can be protected by patents, or by another form of IP, or it can be a mysterious trade secret. Sometimes that IT is simply on a scale, or is configured in a certain way, that makes hard to impossible to duplicate.

With Twitter, this does not seem to be the case.

The IT for social media platform is not, shall we say, rocket science.

Message boards and micro-blogging are quite common and although Twitter may have many more users than other platforms, the value of Twitter is not really in its IT.

And in their different ways, the Threads platform (which is the property of Meta) and the Mastodon phenomenon (which is largely non-proprietary) show that rivals can produce a Twitter-like experience without the Twitter proprietary IT.

*

So if it is not the IT then perhaps the value is in the branding, which would be protected by trade marks and other forms of IP.

Even if the technology is commonplace, there would be value in the brand.

Twitter – and its associated words tweet (as a noun) and tweet (as a verb) – is part of the vernacular and popular culture.

The branding is well-known internationally.

A purchaser of or investor in Twitter could disregard and replace the IT completely and still have something of huge value in the brand.

And as long as the user experience was not affected, few would care or indeed notice.

Here Twitter has an advantage: it may not be rich in IT, but it is in IP – at least in respect of branding.

Regardless of the quality of the owner Y, it would be a very strange thing for an acquirer of or investor in Twitter to renounce the brand.

*

A third thing of value in a business is what can be called generally “goodwill”.

Here the word means the collection of non-tangible (and tangible) things that keeps a business in, well, business.

So a platform which had commonplace IT and, say, unimpressive branding can still be worth buying because of the quality of, for example, its workforce or leadership team, or because of the size and loyalty of its customer or user base or its relationship with advertisers.

Sometimes a company will be acquired just for such assets – regardless of its IT and IP.

Twitter, however, has lost most of its workforce and its leadership team, and many users and advertisers have been alienated.

Users and advertisers are going elsewhere, creating goodwill somewhere else.

To the extent that Twitter users and advertisers have been the focus of attention, it has been as things to exploit for short-term revenue rather than for long-term development.

*

The above list – IT/IP, branding/IP, and goodwill – is not exhaustive: technology and media companies are bought and sold, or invested in, for all sorts of reasons everyday.

Sometimes such companies, like football clubs, are bought for reasons that make no commercial sense whatsoever.

But when someone purchases or invests in technology and media companies one (or more) of those three things is usually the real target of the transaction.

And so what happens when a platform is purchased for an extraordinarily high amount of money which is (a) IT poor, (b) stripped of its valuable branding, and (c) alienates its users and advertisers?

What actually has been bought?

What is the value of such a company?

Well, now we know.

It is the value of X.

****

 

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Posted on 26th July 202327th July 2023Author David Allen GreenCategories Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Contract and Commercial Law, social media

27 thoughts on “The value of X – making sense of a re-branding, from a lawyer’s perspective”

  1. BrianA says:
    26th July 2023 at 13:45

    I remember asking a friend why he was changing the name of his company, and suggested he was removing all the brand recognition he had built up…

    “It’s my business and if I want to flush it down the toilet that’s my own lookout,” he replied.

    Reply
    1. Andrew says:
      27th July 2023 at 06:53

      It would be one thing if Musk paid the $44 billion to acquire Twitter out of his own pocket.

      But, as I understand it, only $20 billion was Musk’s own cash, from selling some Tesla stock (only! ha! that amount exceeds the GDP of dozens of countries, such as Botswana or Malta or Mongolia). He personally borrowed $6 billion secured on his other assets, and the balance came from loans or equity provided by other investors.

      Perhaps those investors are content to see the value of their investment destroyed, perhaps they think Musk is a genius because of his previous successes, perhaps what Musk is doing is all part of the agreed plan.

      But if I were them (or more likely one of their advisers) I would be looking very carefully at the covenants in the investment documents.

      Reply
      1. David Allen Green says:
        28th July 2023 at 08:08

        As I think I wrote at the time, some investors invest on the assumption that a venture will fail, for their eyes are really on the security.

        Reply
  2. Kevin Hall says:
    26th July 2023 at 14:15

    Musk has more money, much more money, than sense. It seems his vision of Twitter becoming an app for everything is worth all the losses he will incur making it happen.

    As a consumer I barely feel the need to interact with Twitter as a messaging app these days. I certainly don’t want to interact with it for anything else.

    Reply
    1. Patric+Judge says:
      26th July 2023 at 16:21

      I had zero need or interest in interacting on any way with Twitter. I have a minus need or interest in X.

      Reply
  3. Paul knowles says:
    26th July 2023 at 14:30

    Brilliant!

    Reply
  4. Graeme Land says:
    26th July 2023 at 15:42

    Very good and witty as well. BUT that is assuming that he is allowed to re brand Twitter as X since that is already under legal challenge by Meta, so for Y the value of X maybe $0

    Reply
  5. John Forbes says:
    26th July 2023 at 16:00

    ……….. the social media platform previously known as Twitter ……….

    Reply
    1. John Forbes says:
      26th July 2023 at 16:05

      Has a ring to it much the same as “the artist previously know as Prince”. Why dump the name or brand? What is the advantage? Certainly Elon Musk is totally unfathomable or X

      Reply
      1. Claudia says:
        26th July 2023 at 19:12

        But ‘the artist previously known as Prince’ continued to create, record and perform music. So, while he lost his brand – or more accurately gave up his previous brand, the other aspects which DAG mentions continued. His skill (equivalent to the IT) and his appeal to audiences continued.

        Reply
  6. Patric+Judge says:
    26th July 2023 at 16:18

    Solve the following : x – y = ?

    Reply
  7. Jyri Sulin says:
    26th July 2023 at 16:23

    What’s the value of the United States to libertarians, if they get to permanently take it over?

    “X” will be the official communications channel for the (global) right-wing/libertarian cabal aiming to replace democratic order of western societies with something more a kin to Benito’s vision.

    Or at least that’s the wet dream of Mr. Musk.

    Of course, he is an amateur swimming with the serious boyz in a crowded pond. Between the Kochs, Mercers, Murdochs, Putins, Erdogans, MbSs, Tories, GOP, and other assorted modern day fascists (in the real meaning of the word, where politics, and state functions, are supplicants to industrial/business interests, and whereby the state becomes the oppressor in chief), Mr. Musk is a bit player.

    Look at, say, the UK.

    A nation so completely fcuked by state capture, since Maggie sold trickle down economics to the gullible, and privatized state monopolies to chums, that people did not, and do not even realize their generational well-being, and freedoms, were on the block.

    Add to it the recent events of entryism capturing one of the major parties, and a backdoor coup d’etat by “an advisory referendum”, whereby your constitutional order was uprooted — and you have the model for the libertarian gang that has been proven to work.

    Best case scenario, we, the people, will pay horrendous financial price for their follies. Worse case, we all become like Saudi-Arabia.

    We need to tax, and regulate, these billionaires, and their co-opted political parties, media organs, “think-tanks”, PACS, etc., out of options/existence to influence policies — like yesterday, and we might still be too late.

    China, of all places, seems to be the only nation able to keep their billionaires in check, or make them dead.

    Ah, the perks of authoritarian regime. Maybe I ought to sign on “X’s” agenda after all.

    Reply
  8. Tara Howard says:
    26th July 2023 at 19:39

    The push I needed to delete my Twitter account.

    Reply
  9. Tony T says:
    26th July 2023 at 19:43

    X = (IT = 0) + (IP = 1-1) + (GW = 1-1)
    X = 0

    Reply
  10. Andrew Wilson says:
    27th July 2023 at 06:01

    Elon Musk admitted recently that Twitter had lost half the value he paid for it and in my opinion that’s a good indicator of just how much the goodwill portion of Twitter’s value was until he personally ended that goodwill via his actions on the platform and Tweets.

    Reply
  11. John Jones says:
    27th July 2023 at 08:30

    People (owners) change the brand for myriad reasons – it’s neither right nor wrong and the outcome (clarity) often resides with the consumer.

    Depending on optics it could be argued there are few downsides – ok, Musk loses a few user’s or advertiser’s the upside – it keeps Musk in the media for another 10,15 mins days/months.

    It really is all about Musk – if he gets 15mins more exposure or ‘effective plugging’ by an liberal blog in the UK – he wins 😉….. who’d have thunk?

    Reply
    1. Kevin Hall says:
      28th July 2023 at 08:34

      Rebranding on a whim is usually a mistake if the original brand is well known and liked. Remember Consignia? Imagine if the eventual new owners of Manchester Utd changed that brand? Vincent Tann tried changing the colours of Cardiff City to red on a similar whim, but had to back down eventually.

      The problem for Musk is his monumental ego. No one dare tell him he’s wrong and he doesn’t seem to listen to advice anyway. He’s obsessed with X and can’t see that everyone else isn’t. You can’t run enormous businesses as a dictator.

      Twitter has lost him billions and he’s made it worse. X will be another losing move. Of course this gets him attention, but it costs him fantastic sums for attention that he actually doesn’t need.

      Reply
      1. John Jones says:
        28th July 2023 at 21:03

        You haven’t worked it out yet – ‘the brand’ is, in my view “Elon Musk”.

        He’s the man behind Telsa, Space -X, now Twitter.

        I doubt he views money in the same way as you or I – it’s not about profit/loss, it’s about Elon Musk.

        I struggle to get to excited about it – I will never own a Tesla, I will never have a Space X ride & I rarely tweet – happy to say he & his brand/sub-brands don’t feature much in my life now or ( knowingly) plan to in the future.

        There, I’ve only quoted his name twice in this post, that’s two too many 🤗

        Reply
        1. Kevin Hall says:
          30th July 2023 at 16:53

          You haven’t worked it out yet

          John, disagree with me by all means but please don’t tell me what I haven’t worked out yet. I actually agree with you that it’s all about Musk. I said as much in my second paragraph. Where I disagree with you is that he’s doing it to get exposure in the media. Given his high profile he didn’t need to rebrand Twitter to do that. He said from the outset he saw Twitter becoming X, the app for everything. This could cost him as much as the Metaverse project cost Zuckerberg.

          Money certainly does matter to him. He tried to back out of his overpriced bid for Twitter when the share price dropped.

          Reply
  12. Jim2 says:
    27th July 2023 at 08:41

    Mr Musk likes the symbol X. Perhaps he enjoyed shooting that blue sparrow with an X bow. Pricey shot though.

    Looking at Musk’s business model – SpaceX works well with deep pocketed governmental customers, Tesla is off its dizzy peaks but doing well. Perhaps Musk will replace the tintack logo with an X. But for the life of me I cannot see why Musk bought Twitter. The technology is ho-hum with lowish costs of entry, in a multiverse of flimflam businesses and I can’t see what he can do with it. Interesting to see where he goes next.

    Remember those Boston Consulting matrices – Rising Star, Cash Cow, Dog, Problem Child. I think he has gone into the childcare business.

    Reply
  13. Staberinde says:
    27th July 2023 at 16:40

    I’m a brand consultant.

    In my world, the gold standard is a brand that has become a verb (to google, to hoover), or a noun representing the category (Tarmac, Tannoy).

    If you have a brand like this, the last thing you should ever, ever do is give it up.

    “To tweet” is a uniquely valuable asset. It makes no sense to tweet unless you are on Twitter. You can change the blue bird to something else, but if you fail to recognise that Twitter and tweeting represent the real value of your brand, you are a moron.

    Reply
    1. Steve Netherwood says:
      28th July 2023 at 15:22

      I’m not a brand consultant, but I was thinking on similar lines when I learned about all this.

      It would be like Hoover deciding that it’s vacuum cleaners are henceforth to be called ‘Pillicle’, or Jacuzzi deciding to rebrand its water relaxation and massage devices ‘Smittig’.

      Glad to find that a brand consultant is thinking on the same lines.

      What does he think he’s doing?

      Reply
      1. Kevin Hall says:
        28th July 2023 at 21:27

        He’s doing what he wants, because he can. There’s no one to tell him not to.

        Reply
  14. Alexis Richardson says:
    28th July 2023 at 06:56

    The value of a social network is that is a content platform and
    a marketplace.

    One way we can think about content is to measure its advertising value = #users * #time-spent * #ad-value. Twitter does quite well here and this is why Elmo will tweet about user growth and engagement. The problem is that Twitter has never made enough money through this model alone. A second way we can value content is that the data archive – the tweets and how they form conversations – can be monetised. Twitter has not done much here. Elmo is now trying to monetise this through xAI which will be able to use tweets to build an LLM.

    For a long time people have proposed that Twitter have premium subscriptions and business services. This would turn it into a marketplace like WeChat in China. That is the model for X. Other social networks have successful marketplaces too (eg FB) and arguably the more generic an online market becomes the more like a social network (eg ‘buyer reputation’ scores).

    WeChat is incredibly valuable to users in China. It is the everything app. Duplicating this in open western markets could be hard though.

    Elmo is conspicuously failing to deliver a subscription service. People knock him but any other Twitter owner would have to do something like what he is trying to do. Perhaps with less melodrama and chaos.

    So yes there is value in Twitter. Actually the “IT” as you call it is a big part of how the user experience works and Twitter is still very different from Threads, Bluesky etc. Mastodon will not scale.

    Cheers,
    alexis

    Reply
  15. lp0 on fire says:
    1st August 2023 at 10:29

    X ⇒ X.org ⇒ X Window System.

    Reply
    1. Andrew says:
      2nd August 2023 at 21:56

      Perhaps – but it reminds me of XCOM. I wonder what computer games Musk was playing in the 1990s.

      Reply
  16. Ivan says:
    4th August 2023 at 13:29

    Social networks demonstrate substantial network economies, as economists refer to it. This means (definition) that the more people who use the network, the more valuable it is to them and to potential new users. A consequence is that it is harder for new alternatives to gain traction to compete with it, and thus a tendency for the number of established providers to remain small. These networks have considerable inertia.

    TSNFKATwitter retains inherent value because of the size of its user base, despite the brand value (apparently) being trashed. Mobile phone networks have changed their names, (Orange, Cellnet, T-Mobile, etc) and carried on and maybe did better after.

    So sometimes it is something that is worth doing, with some short term loss of brand value and maybe potential longer term gain. Alexis R set out a useful discussion of the possible reasons and likelihood of success in this case.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Why the Northern Irish Border Poll of 1973 was both unimportant and profoundly important
Next Next post: Sir Keir Starmer and the Litigation Turn of Mind
Proudly powered by WordPress