Comments on: Hungry? Why change?

By: Nicole Price

Nicole Price — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:17:56 +0000

Thats something you will never know unless you actually change it. But a thumb rule could be, if there is nothing lacking in terms of functionality, appearance, cost, market reach etc, there may not be a need to change.

By: Jason Cartwright

Jason Cartwright — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:51:26 +0000

Here in the UK a few brands change to harmonise across Europe or even globally.

So, for instance a cleaning product called Jif changed it’s name to Cif. This was used as a marketing opportunity – with the adverts taking the mickey out of Europeans failing to pronounce ‘Jif’ – justifying the change and making a funny, memorable advert.

Using your example – ‘Snickers’ used to be called ‘Marathon’ in the UK.

Perhaps the US is more conservative? Or just a bigger market…

By: Damon Billian

Damon Billian — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:42:54 +0000

Possible reasons Google really hasn’t had to change:

1. Their competition in the search market hasn’t done anything to force them to change things.
2. Their revenues, even if they have other products, largely come from one very profitable enterprise. Until someone really threatens those profits in some way, Google has really little reason to change.

eBay hasn’t changed their site that much over the past decade. As Amazon has really started to pose a real challenge to eBay, eBay has a strong need to start innovating again. Even though I used to work at eBay, I do think that Amazon is really starting to kick eBay’s butt with user experience and feel (Amazon has also started offering a lot of cooler new products).

By: Britt

Britt — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:25:52 +0000

Some of what you’re talking about depends on how you define change. Does the change improve the original experience or simply provide a different interaction? I suspect the answer to this question can help determine the need for change.

By: Kevin Wu

Kevin Wu — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:39:57 +0000

Sometimes they update the logo of well established products. I think that’s pretty significant. It helps to modernize the image of your product.

By: Sean Tierney

Sean Tierney — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:25:47 +0000

Coca cola Classic. Look what happened when they tried to push “New Coke.”

By: kadavy

kadavy — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:59:18 +0000

When all of the factors relevant to determining its form hasn’t changed. A website may become irrelevant as technology changes, and while technology in food production has certainly changed, food itself, not so much. Don’t forget, though, that Snickers now offers a variety of sizes of candy bar, probably to go along with cultural changes. Bigger is better – time for a jumbo size. Oh, watch yer carbs – let’s make a bite-sized bar.

By: Atish

Atish — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:21:32 +0000

I don’t follow the “time saved” thing. Does that mean my time was saved by not changing something when I would have changed it?

Actually I see that “time saved” only shows up in my RSS reader and not the actual blog post.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:07:46 +0000

If we’re talking brand I think when you add confusion to your communication (changing names for example, think new coke) then it’s good enough to not change (like snickers). That’s one example I could think of.