As a social media strategist, I find it hard to believe that the names of some Web 2.0 companies don’t play a large part in traditional marketer’s distrust/leeriness/general dismissal of new media. When traditional marketers say things like, “New media is a fad for kids,” it’s hard to refute it when you have to use company names like Twitter, Flickr, FriendFeed and Pownce, to answer their questions.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the services themselves are great…and the names are fine, too. As long as you’re talking to other new media types.
It’s just having to say them when talking about the benefits of social media to I-don’t-know-about-all-this-new-media-stuff CEO’s, CFO’s and investor relations types is a bit…weird. Even for me and if you’ve ever heard me speak, you know I don’t hold back much. 
If we could play let’s pretend, what do you think it would have done to corporate new media adoption rates if Twitter was called Stay-in-Touch, Flickr was Photo Share, FriendFeed was New Media Dashboard and Pownce was Share Data? Or some other equally absurd boring easy-to-understand names?
Would new media professionals have to defend results, ROI and viability as much?
Would our projects get the left-over “experimental” budget?
Would we have to do so much gosh darned explaining?
Would we be able to keep our collective street cred as “the cool people who understand all that tech stuff”?
Tags: Flickr, FriendFeed, Pownce, Twitter, Web 2.0
I suppose you’re right. Time to change those new media names like Kleenex to Nose Wiper and Lego to Block of Plastic (and Legoland to Blocks of Plastic Land).
On second thought, give me my Twitter.
That’s a great point. It’s hard to sell people on microblogging when you have to say “Twitter” all the time and they try not to laugh.
I would hate putting all the names on my resume as they would think the vowels on my typewriter were broken. Wait…typewriter?
Lena,
You touch a very interesting point. Marketers are supposed to “understand” customers. And they need not be understood by small brains. When they KNOW that their customers are already adopting the new media in big measure, and if they still don’t GET IT, I would say, they are not fit to be in that role. The problem actually, is that the marketer’s boss also doesn’t get it. That’s why old marketers continue in their roles.
Overall, it was wonderful reading your post.
Chaitanya
CEO, http://www.p2w2.com
If marketing people cannot get over names that are designed to work for users (the same users the marketers want to reach) then they don’t deserve to be part of the future of marketing.
These names are created first so they can obtain a good URL and second to be memorable. Another point is that unique names get much better play in search engines. Try typing in Stay in Touch and see what you get.
As social media marketing consultants, strategists and providers it is up to use to educate company executives. It is hard, but necessary part of what we do.
New idea’s will always give traditional people a “pause” when the new idea’s become tradition the cycle is repeated. You are either a step closer to the future or a step closer to out of business.
Tough to agree 100%. Google has become a verb. Googled anyone lately?
If the technology sticks, the name will stick too.
Interesting topic Lena.
I personally like the creativity in the names, but agree it makes talking about the tools to the C-suite a little comical at times. I find it more effective to talk about the how and why of these social media tools rather than the names – seems to get much better response.