Twitter is now “X.” The name change was accompanied by a logo swap—replacing the iconic blue bird with a minimalistic design of the letter X—and an expressed ambition by its unconventional billionaire owner, Elon Musk, to be more than just a text-based platform but an everything app comparable to China’s WeChat. While Twitter has undergone many changes since its October 2022 acquisition, this change might be the most shocking—and perhaps the most puzzling—thus far.
The incremental rollout alone induces head-scratching. In less than a week, the X logo itself has changed—after Musk cited that he didn’t like the thicker bars on the “X” iconography. As of this writing, the X.com URL redirects to Twitter.com even though the homepage dons the new X logo. At the launch of X, the @Twitter handle on the platform displayed the X logo, not the iconic bird, as the profile image, yet the page’s profile link directs users to www.about.twitter.com. The link has since been updated to www.X.com. But even if you bypass the clumsy choreography of X’s launch, it’s the rebranding itself that should give marketers pause and cause to interrogate their own brands.
At the core, brands are identifiable signifiers that conjure thoughts and feelings in the minds and hearts of people about a company, product, organization, or person. That is to say, brands are vessels of meaning that evoke emotion and provide a cognitive shortcut for people to make better decisions. This is valuable for consumers and companies alike because branding helps a company’s offerings stand out in a sea of products with little differentiation and helps consumers decide which product might be the best fit for them.
When marketers alter the iconography and marks of their brand, like its logo and color palette, they risk losing its identifiability, the memory aid that makes the brand recognizable. The Twitter brand had that in spades. Its assets and name were widely recognized across the globe with the kind of saliency that companies spend years—and small fortunes—trying to achieve. Yet, Musk threw this value away seemingly overnight, in a haphazard fashion, no less. According to experts, the rebrand wiped out an estimated $4 billion worth of brand value that was once associated with the pervasiveness of the Twitter brand.
Suffice it to say, whatever the dollar amount, brand identifiability has tremendous value. However, it’s the cognitive and affective associations that are conjured when the brand is recognized that give the brand meaning—arguably its truest value. There are plenty of brands that are recognizable but conjure up negative thoughts and undesirable feelings in the minds and hearts of people. These brands are less likely to be chosen or consumed because of the meanings associated with them. Therefore, it’s not enough to be recognized; brands must also be meaningful—that is, full of meaning.
“X” has held many meanings in history and contemporary culture. Algebraically, “X” signifies the unknown. It’s a moniker to denote an undefined variable. This meaning is realized in colloquial language through terms like having an “X-factor” and cultural production like the show “The X Files.” Socially, the Black diaspora has used “X” to signify unknown origins, like Malcolm X. In this context, the use of “X” underscored the fact that the exact origins of Black Americans in this country are largely unknown due to the atrocities of the slave trade. Therefore, the surnames that were given to enslaved Black people by their enslavers did not represent who Black Americans are, nor who their people are, as familial surnames were historically meant to do.
Likewise, the semiotics of “X” are often used to symbolize death. At one time, newspapers decided not to publish pictures of corpses in their press, so they used an “X” to demarcate the dead. Cartoons would also use “X” over a character’s eyes to symbolize death. Conversely, “X” has been used to denote treasure, as in “X marks the spot.” Or a kiss as in “Xs” and “Os.” “X” holds many meanings, and its proposed origins are just as diverse as its many interpretations.
Whatever the origins, the meaning people give brands—what they collectively negotiate and construct—makes their use significant. People create meaning and, subsequently, incorporate these meanings into their cultural practices, which inform what they buy, what they use, where they go, and just about every facet of social living. Culture is, after all, a meaning-making system that helps people translate the world around them and make sense of all its complexity. Branded assets, logos, and colors do not inherently have meaning in and of itself. We give it meaning.
Herein lies the major challenge for Twitter’s transformation to X: the name has changed, but the meaning associated with the platform has not. Naming and branding changes are typically deemed necessary when there is a material change to the company and/or its products. The new moniker and assets help establish the memory structures and associated meanings required to make the changes feel material—think Facebook to Meta, Google to Alphabet. These changes in naming conventions signal a material change in the company and its products. Meta tangibly moved into the metaverse, and Alphabet had already expanded its product remit beyond search and apps. It should also be noted that Facebook and Google’s name changes happened at the corporate holding company level, not at the consumer product level—unlike Twitter’s change to X.
Furthermore, while the ambitions for Twitter have changed, the product and its stewardship, unfortunately, have not. There are no material differences in the product to deem this change necessary. The platform’s functionality and aesthetics are practically identical to what they were before the renaming. There is no real change happening beneath the veneer. We may call it X, but it’s still the same Twitter—Elon Musk’s Twitter, that is—and, as Shakespeare once wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” So is the same with the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Remember when JC Penny’s changed its name to JCP? Or when Radio Shack called itself The Shack? These brands still held the same meaning in people’s minds despite the name change, which made these changes vanity at best. If the name and logos change but the associated meanings do not shift, you’ve only done half the job, which gets to the truth of the matter. This is not a rebrand; it’s a diversion.
It’s no secret that Twitter has been on a downward spiral since Elon’s acquisition. Consumer sentiment has gone south, which has necessitated bringing on a new CEO, Linda Yaccarino. User traffic is down. By Musk’s own admission, ad revenue has decreased. And none of this spells good news for Twitter. We’ve seen this play out in politics over the past seven years. When the headlines aren’t going in your favor, give them a new story to talk about. That’s what this name change is.
While we can speculate, no one knows the mind of Elon Musk—for better or for worst. We can hypothesize that this is a brilliant plan in the mind of a genius who is playing chess while we’re all playing checkers. It is evident that Elon has been fascinated by the concept of “X” for quite some time. This holding company is called X Corp, under which sits Space X, the space exploration company that he owns and operates. His son’s name is pronounced “X.” Before Paypal was Paypal, it was X.com. Perhaps this is just one step in his grand scheme to build the next super app, despite the haphazard nature of this nature. That all remains to be seen.
However, one thing’s for sure, if X is to accomplish the stated ambitions of Musk, it must do much more than the superficial changes we’ve seen in its launch. In most people’s minds, X conjures up cognitions and affects about the brand that feels more erratic than futuristic, thanks to all the questionable changes the platform has endured in the past nine months. Therefore, the X brand must focus on its intended meaning and how it will be communicated and evidenced through implicit and explicit communications as well as the product’s performance.
For Musk, “X” might mean the unknown. For the rest of us, it seems more like the death of what we once knew as Twitter. Or, worse, maybe it signifies the unknown that is Elon Musk himself. With so much uncertainty around what he’s doing and the unpredictability of what he might do, it’s hard to consider that many people will trust him with their finances. That requires a tremendous amount of belief from the public—in the product and him. These associations aren’t captured in a logo, a name, or a color palette; they are manifested in what the brand means to people. It’s meaning that anchors the brand in their hearts and minds, not the identifier. So you must ask yourself, what does your brand mean in the minds of people? Furthermore, is that meaning congruent with what you hope for the brand. If not, you’ve got work to do.
Read the full article here
