“X” rated: Tracksuit data shows consumers not a fan of Twitter rebrand

The decision by Elon Musk to change Twitter’s name to X has damaged overall brand sentiment and usage intent, new research has shown.

Tracksuit surveyed more than 11,000 respondents across Australia, the US and the UK about their awareness of different social media brands. Of that, 3172 consumers were aware of Twitter.

There was a bit of good news in the mix for the social media platform: only 8% of those surveyed were unfamiliar with the recent alteration in its name. 

But the bad news? It found that 31% of respondents had a negative reaction to this change, versus 22% with positive views – a gap of nine points. Drilling down further, 12% of the panel “liked” the renaming to X and 10% were “excited” by it. In contrast, 20% “disliked” the change and 11% were “unhappy” with it.

39% of those surveyed agreed they either “don’t care” or it “makes no difference to me” – an indifferent audience which could potentially be swayed either way about the X brand, depending on its strategy going forwards.

Our research also found that 23% of participants said they would use the platform less following the rebrand, versus 10% who anticipated increasing this activity. Two-thirds of those polled suggested their behavior will be unchanged, leaving another net decline for the brand.

Recent data has backed up these insights: X’s web usage and app downloads have both declinedOpens in new tab, while user churn has risen.

Moral of the story? Brand value is hard won, and quickly lost 😰

Rebrands happen for a variety of reasons: a strategic pivot, entering a new industry, responding to a corporate crisis, and more. 

In the case of Twitter, however, part of the motivation appears simply to be fulfilling a long-held desireOpens in new tab of Musk – who acquired the platform in late 2022 – to run a brand named “X”. 

Beyond that, the sudden announcement embodied Musk’s haphazard approach to operating a cornerstone of the social media ecosystem. This quickly led many advertisers to pull back from the serviceOpens in new tab as they worried about reduced content moderationOpens in new tab and platform instability.

An optimistic take on the rebrand is that it creates new space for a transformationOpens in new tab in user expectations, in line with a stated goal to develop an “everything app” that, in the wordsOpens in new tab of Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, will be “centered in audio, video, messaging, payments/banking” and deliver “a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services, and opportunities.”

Data from our always-on US consumer panel offered support for this, as X outperformed Twitter on perceptions of being “innovative” among people who would consider using these brands. The gap, however, was just 2% – and both X and Twitter lagged behind Reddit, Instagram and TikTok on this metric.

Simultaneously, the rebrand wiped out considerable equity that had been built up over many years by one of social media’s best-known brands. Prior to the rebrand, one study estimatedOpens in new tab that Twitter’s value had already dropped by 32%, or $3.2 billion, year on year following Musk’s takeover; after the rebrand, other industry watchers pegged that figureOpens in new tab at between $4 billion and $20 billion.

One key contributor to that outcome is the loss of Twitter’s distinctive assetsOpens in new tab (also sometimes known as “fluent devicesOpens in new tab” which are the foundations of a brand’s enduring strength) that are – or, at least, were – inextricably connected with the brand.

The most visible example: Its blue bird logo was a widespread feature on brand and media websites as a link to their Twitter feeds, while hanging decalsOpens in new tab let physical stores and small businesses show they wanted to engage consumers in the digital world. (X’s logo, by contrast, has been called “optically misalignedOpens in new tab” and compared with an “authoritarian symbolOpens in new tab”.)

Some of Twitter’s brand assets even held a place in our shared online vocabulary: The term “tweet” started life as the name for a user post, then evolved into a verb. Its hashtags became a common form of expressive shorthand and platform-specific terms like “tweetstorm” – a barrage of posts from a user in a short time – made it into Merriam-Webster’s dictionaryOpens in new tab

On-site aspects of Twitter’s brand architecture have been changed, too. Its blue checkmarks, for example, were once a company-assigned indicator of a user’s expertise or fame. Now, thanks to the “X Premium” feature, they are given to any subscriber paying $8 a month – users who also receive heightened prominence for their messages.

Our US research offers a fuller insight into what this destruction of brand equity means across several metrics, as X trails Twitter for brand awareness, consideration and usage. The only plus? A one-point gain in terms of preference.

All rebrandsOpens in new tab, of course, will suffer from pushback from change-resistant audiences. But they are usually the product of in-depth analysis, gathering rigorous insights, consistent messaging and a well-defined long-term vision. 

Similarly, initial resistance to the demise of Twitter can be expected to subside, and building equity for its successor would then ideally rest on the slow, careful work that underpins every strong, trusted brand. X, however, is still essentially a fuzzy concept – most people are unclear exactly what the brand stands for now. 

Leaders as a brand asset (or not so much 😅)

In the tech industry, more than any other, CEOs have an outsized status in relation to the brands they lead – think Mark Zuckerberg at Meta, Steve Jobs at Apple and Bill Gates at Microsoft.

Often, these CEOs are Founders who are perceived as challenging the status quo. And rebranding Twitter might be intended to help Musk galvanize some of this disruptive spirit, roughly as he achieved when taking the reins at electric carmaker Tesla.

Although Musk hired Yaccarino as X’s CEO in May 2023 to take on the roles of executive chair and chief technology officer, he undoubtedly remains synonymous with X, far more so than with Twitter. This means his actions have quite an impact on the brand.

Given that backdrop, a useful way to understand his role is to look at evidence which shows that achieving the right “fit” between a CEO and a brand can have positive effects – while CEOs who are seen as irresponsible generally achieve the opposite.

One study in the Journal of Advertising ResearchOpens in new tab, for example, noted that CEOs have a brand – based on their personality, performance and leadership – that is distinct from corporate brands and product brand awareness. And, it discovered, on social media, the chief executive’s own brand image predicts advertising credibility.

Elsewhere, Brand Finance, the brand valuation consultancy, publishes an annual rankingOpens in new tab of CEOs based on their “brand guardianship” – and Musk dropped out of its top 100 in 2023, having claimed 30th spot in 2022, due in part to his leadership at Twitter.

The social media platform’s journey has potentially delivered an unwanted halo effect for Tesla, too, as it has plummetedOpens in new tab down a consumer survey of reputable brands. A Bloomberg pollOpens in new tab among Tesla owners further confirmed that Musk’s public utterances were regarded as harming the automaker’s reputation.

The X rebrand 🤝 Elon Musk

The biggest social media platforms have built audiences through offering free access to users in exchange for seeing ads. 

Recent subscription plans from SnapchatOpens in new tab and MetaOpens in new tab have looked beyond this approach and, last month, Musk suggested that Twitter may charge all users a “small monthly payment” – without clarifyingOpens in new tab a dollar amount or a timeline for doing so. A test programOpens in new tab is also charging new users in New Zealand and the Philippines a $1 fee.

A 2023 study in the Harvard Business ReviewOpens in new tab revealed that paid-for subscribers to what is now “X Premium” were generally satisfied with the level of pricing. This viewpoint, it explained, was more prevalent among “college-educated, conservative, younger, male, and high-income users” – a cohort that does seem to fitOpens in new tab in with Musk’s own political leanings.

This insight hints at a broader truth: Disentangling the consumer response to Twitter’s rebrand from the conversation around Musk has become a near-impossible task.

His online prominence and erratic style might appeal to a devoted legion of fans, but ultimately could alienate more people than they attract – as well as discouraging advertisers from returning to X if they believe it remains an unpredictable, or unsafe, environment for their brands.

We’ll be keeping an eye on X’s brand metrics to see what else develops from here 👀