Interesting talk from Scott Havens here about why WalMart acquired them and what Walmart problems they were able to solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FskIb9SariI
There simply isn't a need for jet.com branding anymore.
Would someone who qualifies for the Olympics for the first time from a powerhouse country not qualify as "one of the best in the world"?
I just say that the brand is strong only in USA but not so much outside. Not many people care about or even know the brand in most countries. So it's not a lot of strength worldwide even though it's valuable in Forbes and very strong in USA. Coca-Cola or Apple are much more strong worldwide.
Who cares? Countries are not all equal. This is one of those "Either the sun will come up in the morning, or it won't. Two choices; fifty-fifty" arguments.
If you peruse the HN comments from the time, many of them were convinced that this was a waste of money (though not the top comment, interestingly enough): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840
Instagram's branding/demo was a big part of what FB was after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Procter_%26_Gamble_bra...
Presumably they capture more of the overall market for detergent that way. Maybe the same mechanisms do not apply to retail in general.
Therefore making P&G more money.
It seems plausible that as walmart.com becomes better known as a good alternative to amazon for straightforward items, it might actually make people trust the walmart brand more - and put more shoppers in stores.
If they have a positive experience online, that could affect their impression of the Walmart brand in general.
I'm almost certain you meant to say Walmart here.
https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Econom...
Well your comment isn’t particularly coherent then.
But I think basically anyone using Jet pretty much knew it was WalMart anyway so it didn't matter.
Like the post above said, much of the Jet acquisition was likely really just to absorb the IP and expertise, anyway.
That said, we recently ordered some patio furniture from Walmart.com after comparison shopping on Amazon and Home Depot. And I suppose next month we’ll find better deals on yet another site. Don’t get too cozy with any of these companies and keep your eyes open for price and quality drift.
// no amount of branding awareness tv ads are fixing the name recognition they lost with that one... still redirects though.
Interesting trivia from a friend working there, and quite unusual for a Japanese company: most (Project Management, Development, Management) internal communication above a certain job-grade level is conducted in English, including in Japan.
Their branding strategy is garbage.
But, yes, it's confusing.
I did use play.com lots, but never Rakuten so far.
That may also be that I don't buy CDs, DVDs anymore.
I think of this as the social media Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. You see comments from folks with zero insight and no doubt no specialized knowledge of the relevant industry, recognize that they are likely just making an off-the-cuff comment without any value, open the next thread where it's less obvious how little industry knowledge the posters have, and resume giving their comments the benefit of the doubt.
I fall victim to it with some frequency. Almost any comments here about the medical industry, of which I'm a veteran, are just wildly ignorant - and spoken with the same strident confidence as comments about the airline industry (for example), about which commenters are likely just as profoundly ignorant. But then I don't know they're profoundly ignorant, and suddenly I think, gosh, that person has some incisive insights.
Seems like it would be useful to market to other demographics or customers that don't have positive associations with Walmart.
I already have a preference for Target, Walmart's competitor, because I associate Walmart with prioritizing cheap over everything, including quality and style.
It probably makes a lot more sense to focus on a single brand.
Walmart tried to make Jet.com focused on large cities but that didn’t do much.