Facebook’s Rebranding is an Example of a Marketing Strategy Used by Companies Facing Criticism

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that the company has changed its name to Meta — Greek for “beyond” — is an example of a marketing strategy that has been utilized to distract attention away from a company that’s received bad press and is in the midst of a crisis.

However, it’s unlikely that the name change will help the corporation resolve any of the current difficulties or disputes.

A name change at this time, when Facebook is under fire, strengthens the impression that the firm is attempting to avoid responsibility for its growing litany of wrongdoings. Even if the name change is unrelated to the current situation, it will be perceived as a clumsy public relations ploy. It’s a present for all writers. The name change was made to represent who we are and what we aim to accomplish, according to Zuckerberg. He also stated that the development of our social networking apps will always be a priority for us. However, our brand is currently so closely associated with one product that it can’t reasonably represent everything we’re doing now, let alone in the future. “Over time, I hope that we are seen as a metaverse company. I want to anchor our work and our identity on what we’re building towards,” he said.

‘Facebook Will Remain Facebook’



Elie Jacobs, a partner at Purposeful Communications, said, “The ‘meta-answer’ is that a name change will have no bearing whatsoever on the crisis situations Facebook is facing.” “Think of how few people refer to Google as Alphabet or how many people still call Altria Phillip Morris. Facebook will still be Facebook and each week will uncover yet another scandalous thing Zuckerberg & Co. have tried to cover up,” he said.

Jacobs observed that, Meanwhile the stock is likely going to continue to rise until the government takes real action. While there is a long-standing Jewish tradition to rename a person going through life-threatening medical challenges, I don’t think Zuckerberg had that in mind. I don’t think the lesson for business leaders here is renaming equals rebirth…”

‘The Timing is Odd’

Given the recent scrutiny the corporation has been subjected to, the timing is odd. Aside from the name change, the corporation still has a lot of work to do to regain consumer trust and demonstrate that it can truly protect privacy while maintaining balanced and fair standards that apply to everyone, not just a chosen few.

They must take concrete actions to re-establish the brand promise. Demonstrate true accountability and openness. They’re currently papering up the cracks, but everyone can see it for what it is. They should consider replacing some of the top leaders and hiring outside consultants to assess and oversee their reforms. That would go a long way toward displaying their commitment to fixing their image and demonstrating what they truly stand for.

‘An Old-Fashioned Redirection’

The decision by Facebook to change the platform’s name is a typical diversionary tactic designed to divert attention away from not only what the general public thinks, but also what every marketing specialist understands. Behind the scenes, there are more changes than the general public is aware of. They aren’t actually monstrosities driven by greed. They’re after power, and getting it is what they’re after. Power is what they are looking for, and achieving.

No Influence on Brand

A brand does not alter because of a name or a logo change. A face lift will not be able to conceal or erase the past. If the perception is that they are using it to distract themselves from prior troubles, they are actually reviving that thought process by making this change, rather than deflecting it, since they expect that a new sparkling name and logo will divert everyone.

‘Bringing Their Issues to Light’

They’re drawing attention to their troubles while also raising doubts about the brand. The word “Facebook” conjured up images of people and humanity, as well as a desire to collaborate, share, and connect. “Meta” is appropriate because it looks as if they are going toward a data-driven platform rather than connecting people. This is comparable to Disney’s recent problems in that they both appear to be headed in the wrong direction while the rest of the world is focusing on connecting, empathizing, and remaining relevant by being, and putting, people first.