First, we have Google. Stadia is Google’s name for its gaming service. Let me say that again: Google’s gaming service is called Stadia. Not Google Stadia. Not Stadia by Google. Just Stadia. Now, Google’s approach to naming is not so much an approach, but a set of approaches. Look across its portfolio and you’ll see everything from Google Maps and Google Docs to Chromecast to YouTube. Newer offerings include Nest and Google Fi. The point is, rather than be tied to a particular naming convention, Google picks its approach on a case by case basis.
Apple, on the other hand, has chosen to call its gaming service Apple Arcade. Not Arcade, Apple Arcade. It is consistent with the company’s view that people don’t just buy its products, they buy into its ecosystem and its philosophy. That view is clearly reflected in how the company names things. In a way, an Apple product has to be branded as such in order to be an Apple product.
How did two different businesses competing for the same users with two very similar products launching at the same time reach such different brand conclusions for?
Easy. They’re two different businesses.
How did two different businesses reach such different brand conclusions for?
Easy. They’re two different businesses.
In order for Google to bring a platform- and device- agnostic game service to market, it needed to create a bit of distance between itself and Stadia. It’s a similar approach to how Microsoft distanced itself from Xbox when it launched way back in 2001, albeit for different reasons. In that case, Microsoft was viewed as a domineering boxed software company whose products were used by mindless drones. To be a credible gaming platform amongst the anti-drone hardcore gamers that dominated the category back then, Microsoft couldn’t be an active part of the conversation. In this case, Google has enough credibility amongst the broad spectrum of people who game, that it could have gone with Google Stadia. But, doing so wouldn’t allow the Stadia brand to stand on its own in the same way that YouTube does. As such, Stadia has the potential and freedom to be a very big deal in its own right. Put another way, the business needs and opportunity that Google sees with Stadia means making it an arm’s length brand is the right choice.
Apple sees signing up for Apple Arcade as just another way that people commit to the brand. The fact that Apple Arcade will require Apple devices, accounts, etc to play means that this service, much like Apple Music, it designed to entice people to buy and upgrade their assortment of Apple hardware. That model is what has been key to Apple’s success in the last decade, heck, it’s whole history, and there’s no indication the company sees any reason to change. Hence, Apple + <Product Name> continues to be the default choice for naming. Like Google and Stadia, Apple Arcade fits the needs of the business.
Both approaches are right. What they are not is swappable.
Both approaches are right. What they are not is swappable. Brand decisions, whether they are about defining the brand idea, selecting color palettes or guiding innovation, need to fit the specific needs of the business the brand serves. Move a few of the business dials and what was right becomes at best suboptimal, at worst disastrous. Making matters more complex, because businesses and the markets they operate in have a habit of changing and evolving, what worked for the last naming exercise may not be what works for the next.
So, how do you decide? First, you have to decide to decide.
So, how do you decide? First, you have to decide to decide. In most corporations, where people are overloaded, understaffed and crunched for time, the easiest path is to rinse and repeat. At some point – maybe it was the last product launch, maybe it was one ten years ago – someone decided that we use approach X. Therefore, we’ll just do that. That approach works until it doesn’t. It’s far better to apply a basic set of decision criteria (adapting it for your specific needs) and actively decide what to do. Some would say that such a tactic defeats the purpose of having a brand architecture or naming strategy in place. They’d be wrong.
In order to get you started, consider the following:
