Brand Failures
Brand Failures Brand Failures
236 Brand failures 83 Excite@Home Bad branding @ work There was a time when Excite@Home was considered to be one of the ‘safe bets’ of the Internet revolution. Based around one simple service offering – the delivery of high-speed net access – investors were quick to see its potential. Then, bolstered by investment dollars, Excite@Home decided it wanted to be something bigger, and purchased a variety of online media properties including the Excite Web portal and Blue Mountain Arts in an attempt to build on AOL-style empire. Although the company was once the leading cable Internet access provider, it fell behind the competition once it had broadened its ambitions. According to CNET journalist Ben Haskett, the demise of Excite@Home ‘bordered on Greek tragedy,’ with a history filled with tense boardroom skirmishes, illconceived acquisitions and executives who governed the operations from afar. ‘Excite@Home was largely a victim of its own grandiose ambitions, as well as of a convoluted ownership structure that kept too many cooks in the kitchen,’ Haskett wrote in his post-mortem of the company. The merger of Excite and @Home (which was originally called just that) has been viewed as a critical mistake, although the motives were clear. William Hearst III, one of the Silicon Valley venture capitalists who helped to found the company, said: I felt the merger was a good idea at the time because I thought that when you’re building a consumer marketplace, you need to have one-stop
Internet and new technology failures 237 shopping. One of the promises of the @Home idea was that you’d have a national brand, not a different brand in every marketplace. And as AOL has proven, if you have an e-mail product and a content product and a telecommunications product and a software product all under one single point of responsibility, you can build a very big company. That, I think, was the motive for the Excite merger: to build a company trying to produce a uniform consumer experience but on broadband instead of dial-up. The merger didn’t work though. Disputes between the telecom and media divisions meant that many management staff walked out. In addition, the company’s CEO was running the business from Boston, more than 3,000 miles away from the Silicon Valley operation, which inevitably caused difficulties. It should also be noted that although Excite@Home offered cable Internet access, it offered this access over another company’s cable lines, those of AT&T. Indeed, AT&T were the controlling shareholders, a fact which created further friction and conflicts of interest. For instance, according to Hearst, AT&T ‘didn’t share the content vision.’ The problem was also one of timing. The dot.com collapsed once the company started to diversify. ‘By the time the company decided to look at spinning off Excite, the marketplace had deteriorated,’ explains Hearst. ‘And meanwhile, the demand for broadband was growing so rapidly that the capital was needed to sustain the quality of service of the business.’ Perhaps the biggest problem, however, was marketing. Following the merger, Excite@Home simply wasn’t able to differentiate itself or provide Internet users with a valid enough incentive to switch to their service. In January 2000 Red Herring magazine reflected: Excite@Home hasn’t exactly lived up to its name. Continual rotation of its advertising and messaging has sent this portal’s brand identity into big-time obscurity. The company was on to something with its witty ‘anyone can do it’ TV campaign, but it disappeared in a blink. Yahoo is our whimsical guide; Infoseek our all-knowing soothsayer. Excite@ Home is more like a politician on the fence.
- Page 193 and 194: People failures 185 66 Enron Failin
- Page 195 and 196: People failures 187 67 Arthur Ander
- Page 197 and 198: People failures 189 68 Ratner’s W
- Page 199 and 200: People failures 191 met comedians w
- Page 201 and 202: People failures 193 was out, Planet
- Page 203 and 204: People failures 195 is wrong to lea
- Page 205 and 206: People failures 197 had lost the su
- Page 207: People failures 199 tortilla brand
- Page 211 and 212: Brands, like people, have a fear of
- Page 213 and 214: Rebranding failures 205 73 Consigni
- Page 215 and 216: Rebranding failures 207 of the name
- Page 217 and 218: Rebranding failures 209 74 Tommy Hi
- Page 219 and 220: Rebranding failures 211 style that
- Page 221 and 222: Rebranding failures 213 in the Repu
- Page 223 and 224: Rebranding failures 215 former secr
- Page 225 and 226: Rebranding failures 217 Lessons fro
- Page 227 and 228: Rebranding failures 219 neighbours
- Page 229 and 230: 79 British Airways When British Air
- Page 231: CHAPTER 9 Internet and new technolo
- Page 234 and 235: 226 Brand failures now believe bran
- Page 237 and 238: 81 Pets.com In the mid-1990s, when
- Page 239 and 240: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 241 and 242: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 243: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 247 and 248: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 249 and 250: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 251 and 252: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 253 and 254: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 255 and 256: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 257 and 258: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 259 and 260: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 261 and 262: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 263: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 267: All brands will eventually fail. Th
- Page 270 and 271: 262 Brand failures The $600-million
- Page 272 and 273: 264 Brand failures Lessons from Old
- Page 274 and 275: 266 Brand failures interview. ‘An
- Page 276 and 277: 268 Brand failures 91 Ovaltine When
- Page 278 and 279: 270 Brand failures 92 Kodak Failing
- Page 280 and 281: 272 Brand failures tive strategy if
- Page 282 and 283: 274 Brand failures 93 Polaroid Live
- Page 284 and 285: 276 Brand failures launch of its SX
- Page 286 and 287: 278 Brand failures ‘was that they
- Page 288 and 289: 280 Brand failures 94 Rover A dog o
- Page 290 and 291: 282 Brand failures 95 Moulinex Goin
- Page 292 and 293: 284 Brand failures 96 Nova magazine
236 <strong>Brand</strong> failures<br />
83 Excite@Home<br />
Bad branding @ work<br />
There was a time when Excite@Home was considered to be one of the ‘safe<br />
bets’ of the Internet revolution. Based around one simple service offering –<br />
the delivery of high-speed net access – investors were quick to see its potential.<br />
Then, bolstered by investment dollars, Excite@Home decided it wanted to<br />
be something bigger, and purchased a variety of online media properties<br />
including the Excite Web portal and Blue Mountain Arts in an attempt to<br />
build on AOL-style empire.<br />
Although the company was once the leading cable Internet access provider,<br />
it fell behind the competition once it had broadened its ambitions. According<br />
to CNET journalist Ben Haskett, the demise of Excite@Home ‘bordered on<br />
Greek tragedy,’ with a history filled with tense boardroom skirmishes, illconceived<br />
acquisitions and executives who governed the operations from afar.<br />
‘Excite@Home was largely a victim of its own grandiose ambitions, as well<br />
as of a convoluted ownership structure that kept too many cooks in the<br />
kitchen,’ Haskett wrote in his post-mortem of the company.<br />
The merger of Excite and @Home (which was originally called just that)<br />
has been viewed as a critical mistake, although the motives were clear.<br />
William Hearst III, one of the Silicon Valley venture capitalists who helped<br />
to found the company, said:<br />
I felt the merger was a good idea at the time because I thought that when<br />
you’re building a consumer marketplace, you need to have one-stop