To non-moguls, Elon Musk’s (perhaps temporary) rebrand of Twitter to “X” may seem high risk, amateurish, or even capricious. But it is likely doing exactly what he intended: generating enormous global interest, pushing Twitter closer to his other X brands (SpaceX, Tesla Model X, xAI), and clearing the way for a profitable merging of technologies.
What happened to the blue bird?
Has a radical rebrand ever succeeded?
- But it kept “Facebook”, gave us the metaverse, and didn’t deprive the world of a cute feathery icon and concept of “tweeting”.
- Branding experts around the globe have been quick to condemn the Twitter shakeup as too sudden and destructive of brand capital.
- That’s perhaps because even slight name changes are known to be risky.
- The change will take time to play out and can likely be revised, reversed and adjusted as feedback is generated.
- Read more:
What will Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter mean for 'free speech' on the platform?
Doesn’t someone else own the “X” trademark?
- Trademarks are granted or refused based on their ability to identify the source of the associated goods or services.
- Famous brands have advantages: Musk has already garnered enough media attention to ensure X is now a globally recognised term for his company.
- My own research argues trademarks used by tech firms involved in consumer search and decision making (like Twitter) are inherently generic.
- Both Microsoft and Meta (and many others) have laid claims to X in the past for various goods and services.
What is Musk trying to achieve?
- I find that analysis too simplistic, especially given the ongoing focus on antitrust.
- Musk is arguably in a position to survey (and reshape) the landscape of not just “town square” discourse but space travel, artificial intelligence (AI), transportation and even politics.
- The X rebrand could relate to AI (Musk had a role in a data drought this year by restricting Twitter data access).
- Does Musk care if Twitter disappears?