Facebook Rebranding.. A Face Hiding Attempt???

 Last week Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared his organization is changing its name to Meta. The rebrand has prospected reasons: it's a silly endeavor to divert from the analysis the organization has as of late confronted; the metaverse that the new name alludes to isn't notable or seen, so it's befuddling; Meta is a dumb organization name, and so forth. However, the most basic issue with this rebranding is that the new brand has been presented with next to no considerable change at the organization.

Zuckerberg clarified the rebrand during his speech at the organization's virtual session, Facebook Connect, saying, "It is the ideal opportunity for us to embrace a new company brand to incorporate all that we do." But, that is simply false. The vision behind Meta is still that: a dream. At this moment, social media stays the center of the organization's activities and revenues. By embracing a brand name that depends on future potential capabilities and a stage and products that, by Zuckerberg's own confirmation, may not be set up for almost 10 years, the organization sets itself up to confound people at best, even from a pessimistic standpoint, it will frustrate people and further discourage their confidence in the organization.

It's not surprising that Facebook would take this tact; many organizations do. At the point when business pioneers need to change their organization's character or reposition their business, they regularly go to outer informing and correspondences first — another name, a new logo, a publicizing effort. That is because these sorts of surface-level changes are moderately simple to make; it's considerably more hard to roll out genuine improvements to the business and company culture.

There may have been a period in the past when a corporate makeover was powerful at changing public assessment. Today's clients are much shrewd. They should be offered something significantly unique or see solid proof issues have been fixed before they will accept that the organization has really changed. They demand genuineness from the brands they work with, and they anticipate that companies should be within what they say they are on the outside.

By adopting another name, Facebook might be attempting to guarantee that it is creating innovative technologies that unite people in very interesting ways. However, in reality, it is an organization that is assembling and advancing possibly perilous products, holding onto a broken labor force culture, and losing the confidence of its clients. It ought to have delayed until it resolved these issues, and most importantly, set up a good foundation for itself as a supplier of metaverse items or applications before announcing a new brand.

Obviously, not all organizations depend on name changes to fix their public images. Think about Microsoft's revolution. At the point when CEO Satya Nadella set off to revamp the organization and address its critics, the organization accepted AI, versatile, and cloud-first techniques; freed itself up to associations (e.g., Linux); forcefully sought after acquisitions (e.g., LinkedIn); and carried out advanced change across its tasks. Above all, Nadella changed the organization culture from one portrayed by infighting and dormancy to a learning association that blossoms with joint effort and client fixation. But, Microsoft hasn't wanted to change its name or dispatch any sort of corporate mission to advance the changes. All things considered, it has depended on its functional and culture changes to restore its business and shift general assessment. There's no sign that anything comparable is at present permeating at Facebook.

Many people allude to a brand as a promise; however, a brand should be a promise delivering. With its rebranding exertion, Facebook is making promises that it doesn't appear to be ready to convey right now. Until it shows that it's rolling out genuine improvements, Meta will simply be the same worn-out Facebook by another name.