Does "X" Mark The Spot?

It happened. Twitter is now X.

Time for an examination through the lens of positioning theory!

There are two layers to break down here:

1. 🐦 "Rebranding" Twitter

2. 🌐 "Super app"

Let's start with rebranding Twitter. 

🐦 Rebranding Twitter

Twitter as a brand is 'positioned' in the mind of consumers, globally.

It's a unique representation of the valuable product category the company owns mentally.

That is: short-form, open network messages. The 'town square' of the Internet.

This logic is based on the positioning theory that humans categorise products into mental folders. Each folder has one dominant brand that 'owns' the category in the mind.

This brand 'owner' is hardwired as the default option at the point of need. The mind surfaces it first, creating a positive bias preference for that brand.

Twitter achieved this category ownership status because it was first in the mind of consumers with the product category idea.

Just like 'search' with 'Google' and 'smart phones' with ‘iPhone’.

How did Twitter achieve this?

1. Inventing the category (though, this isn't essential)

2. Defining the category clearly (simple ideas imprint and spread mind-to-mind, virally)

3. Cementing ownership of the category in the mind through visuals and language

The Twitter brand achieved the perfect outcome.

How so?

1. The name 'Twitter' is synonymous with the product category it owns. Just like 'Google' and 'search'.

2. Verbal identity: To 'tweet' is a household-level verb.

3. Visual identity: The blue bird.

This all intuitively reflects the positioning and is key to memorisation.

It creates a 'psychological moat'. No one else can make these claims.

Not even with Meta-sized budgets for Threads.

So, what implications does this have for the 'rebrand'?

In positioning theory, rebranding something that's as strong, valuable, relevant, and entrenched as Twitter is in the mind is a big "no, no". Like, batshit crazy.

It's a move that erodes and can dislodge ownership of the mental category.

"Twitter" means something. "X" doesn't (yet).

➡️ Related: Meta have launched Threads with perfect timing.

This move was no doubt encouraged by Elon Musk’s very public announcement of using Twitter as a vehicle to build a 'super app' when he bought it.

Why is this dangerous for Twitter (sorry, err, "X")?

Threads already means something, days after launching, by using Twitter as a mental device to position itself.

But, without Twitter existing, what remains?

Threads and X

• Threads's positioning is precisely focused.

• X is not. It's an "app for everything"

This leaves X exposed for Threads to claim ownership of the mental category.

Plus… X has 'positioning debt' that'll be expensive to change.

Folks will continue to use the word '“tweet”, causing confusion with X.

This is bad because the mind hates conflict, further aiding Threads.

But, so what?

Elon Musk and Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino know this.

The objective isn't to 'rebrand Twitter' and grow it as the leader of the product category.

That opportunity is too small. Twitter is a 'lifestyle business' for Elon.

This brings me to the second layer of analysis, the 'super app'.

🌐 Super app

Clearly, the X rebrand is designed to create a new position in the mind of consumers with the 'super app' concept.

"X is the future state of unlimited interactivity" as Linda Yaccarino put it.

In other words, they’re betting the farm on an opportunity with an asymmetric upside. The holy grail of app opportunities — the “super app”. 👇

The Twitter brand has been shelved and the infrastructure and network behind it utilised to try to build something much much bigger.

It's the difference between trying to build a $100bn company and a $1tn+ company. A calculated bet in which the Twitter brand is expendable.

🤔 What’s the new positioning, though?

Because of 'super apps' like WeChat in Asia, it's theoretically straightforward to position the idea of a 'Western super app' IF consumers are familiar with WeChat and similar apps.

But, that’s a BIG “if”.

This theory sounds more like an outcome of ‘inside-out thinking’ (company logic) than ‘outside-in thinking’ (customer logic).

There are a few problems and hurdles to cross:

1. Most Western consumers likely aren't familiar with WeChat and the 'super app' concept (early adopters, Musk bros, and investors... yes)

2. Arguably, iOS and Android are effectively the West's super apps. They own the 'mental folder'.

3. 'One app to rule them all' is a mental idea that Westerners are increasingly demonstrating pushback on with regard to data, control, choice, and perceived fairness.

Facebook has been trying to build a super app for years. Zuck knows how hard it is, hence the flanking manoeuvre with Threads. One app one idea. Build a portfolio.

Critically, X’s positioning lacks focus.

Check out Twitter CEO Linda’s explanation for what it is:

Huh?

With Twitter... "I send tweets. I read tweets".

With X... I "interact unlimitedly through audio, video?"

With X... I "join a marketplace for ideas?"

There's no mental category for these.

Generic, generalised, and abstract claims like this are notoriously difficult to position in the mind.

🧐 Interesting observation:

The positioning strategy (so far) feels out of lockstep with Elon Musk’s other companies like Tesla, SpaceX, etc, which are focused.

Admittedly, it's early days so Elon and Twitter CEO Linda will iterate on it.

But, to have a chance at building some kind of super app in the long run, the positioning strategy will need to be focussed.

Amazon's positioning is pretty generic nowadays, but it started with focus (selling books online) and gradually expanded intuitively from it.

Now Elon has gone down this route it makes sense for X to follow a similar pathway, expanding intuitively from the perception of the core original product (Twitter).

But, this is far from a slam dunk. The more you expand a brand (do with it) the weaker its positioning becomes in the mind.

For that reason, X may be better off mentally as an operating system than an app.

Another weakness?

X is a generic name. Unlike say… Tesla.

Generic names are notoriously more difficult position in the mind.

It’s probably a contributing factor in why “PayPal” was used in favour of “X.com” by the PayPal mafia after Musk’s company X.com merged with Confinity Inc (the creators of PayPal) back in the day.

Musk obviously has a phenomenal track record of building household brand names. So, it’ll be fun to watch this playout. Whatever happens.

That’s it for today! I’ll be back in your inbox soon.

Martin 👋

Did someone forward you this email? Happens allll the time.

Subscribe to receive more content like this, weekly(ish). 👇