To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Seriously, why would they throw away the Palm brand, and replace it with something less recognisable, which also could cause confusion with other products?
Ego. IANABP (I am not a business person) nor do I play one on TV, so I never understand this reasoning either. When buying a company, a large portion of the money goes into "goodwill" and "brand recognition". Why some companies as a first step decide to blow millions on rebranding (think of all the marketing materials, letterheads, web presence, etc.) to replace the original (paid-for!) name with their own, often less known, can only be explained by ego.
Does anyone have any statistics as to growth, market value, brand recognition etc. before and after such a renaming action?
IAANABP, but I'd say that in cases where two well-known (and equally well-liked) brands are merged, it often makes sense to get rid of one of those brands, because it allows for a "halo effect" that disperses equally on all of your products. However, in all cases where one brand is better-known (and/or better-liked) you're absolutely right that it makes no sense to get rid of that brand name.
I suspect this is Access's way of saying "screw you" to Palm for not throwing their support behind Access's upcoming platform.




Member since:
2006-12-19
Access = Microsoft Desktop Database system.
Garnet = Comedy character from an old English television program, synonomous with West Ham football club and racism.
Seriously, why would they throw away the Palm brand, and replace it with something less recognisable, which also could cause confusion with other products?
Craziness!