Was Uber’s Branding Done While Uber High?(madartlab.com)
madartlab.com
Was Uber’s Branding Done While Uber High?
http://madartlab.com/was-uber-branding-done-while-uber-high/
215 comments
Wow, that is epic. I'm not sure what the hell to make of it, but it kind of reads like one of those net.kook manifestos about how to create a perpetual motion machine or something like that. But more polished.
It reminds me of something food startup Hampton Creek did when VCs and reporters came to visit- they would have their scientists fire up dry ice machines and do fake "cool looking experiments" for no purpose other than to look impressive:
> When investors, clients, or media visited the company, some scientists would be asked to run experiments on cool-looking machines or use liquid nitrogen to dramatic effect — even if it had nothing to do with their work, a former employee says.
> It was all to create an appearance of a hardworking lab, even though it distracted from the actual research that needed to be done, former employees said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hampton-creek-ceo-complaints-...
> When investors, clients, or media visited the company, some scientists would be asked to run experiments on cool-looking machines or use liquid nitrogen to dramatic effect — even if it had nothing to do with their work, a former employee says.
> It was all to create an appearance of a hardworking lab, even though it distracted from the actual research that needed to be done, former employees said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hampton-creek-ceo-complaints-...
Ugh, that article is so sad. I really wanted to believe the hype about Hampton Creek.
It seemed like they were doing something truly revolutionary with the potential to drastically reduce human consumption of eggs. (This can only be a good thing for anyone with a concern for animal welfare.)
The article suggests their core product is just mayonnaise made with an already-commonplace vegan food additive. They outsourced the development of it, and don't even understand the science of how it works.
Is there a new generation of entrepreneurs who have realised their path to riches is to found a PR machine masquerading as a tech company?
It seemed like they were doing something truly revolutionary with the potential to drastically reduce human consumption of eggs. (This can only be a good thing for anyone with a concern for animal welfare.)
The article suggests their core product is just mayonnaise made with an already-commonplace vegan food additive. They outsourced the development of it, and don't even understand the science of how it works.
Is there a new generation of entrepreneurs who have realised their path to riches is to found a PR machine masquerading as a tech company?
> Is there a new generation of entrepreneurs who have realised their path to riches is to found a PR machine masquerading as a tech company?
...Yes.
I wouldnt call it "new" or a "generation" but rather there are always those who can get by with hype and no substance. Nothing new but the amount of people doing it goes through boom and bust cycles like everything else.
...Yes.
I wouldnt call it "new" or a "generation" but rather there are always those who can get by with hype and no substance. Nothing new but the amount of people doing it goes through boom and bust cycles like everything else.
This can't be real... right? God the advertising industry is so much worse than I thought.
Seriously... is this a real design document?
I did a quick google and it appears so. :/
I think you'll find that the NeXT logo was designed in a similar fashion, and that many high end brands get this kind of input into their logos and branding.
Call it snake oil? Probably, but at least a multi billion dollar brand can answer the question "Why does the swirl look like that?".
And only $1 million? That was _cheap_!
Call it snake oil? Probably, but at least a multi billion dollar brand can answer the question "Why does the swirl look like that?".
And only $1 million? That was _cheap_!
Just give me the multi-million dollar logo contract so I may give you the snake-oil design document which justifies my multi-million dollar fee for the snake-oil design document!
I guess its hard to deal with that, at the end of the day, you are just trying to exploit subconscious survival instincts to usurp the rational mind to get people buy things they do not want to buy.
It must be satire… but even the chance that it’s real is disturbing.
This is the most bizarre thing I've seen in a long time. And I frequent the internet. I'm with you. I can't believe it's real!
I remember when this was leaked. I'm almost positive it's real, and not only that, but Pepsi spent $1 Million on it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-redesign...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-redesign...
[deleted]
Peter Arnell is known for this, just search his name on google and you'll get lots of colorful articles. The Arnell Group was also behind the Tropicana redesign disaster [1].
Lately, it seems he's been brought aboard by BlackBerry and it's interesting how their instagram page shows the slow change from normal looking ads to just weird abstract black and white crap. [2]
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-blow-to-arnell-tropicana-drop...
2. https://www.instagram.com/blackberry/
Lately, it seems he's been brought aboard by BlackBerry and it's interesting how their instagram page shows the slow change from normal looking ads to just weird abstract black and white crap. [2]
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-blow-to-arnell-tropicana-drop...
2. https://www.instagram.com/blackberry/
Wow.
I'd loved to have seen this presentation, and in particular a recording of the Pepsi exec's faces as they decide it's safer to go with the consensus of the group rather than to speak up.
I'd loved to have seen this presentation, and in particular a recording of the Pepsi exec's faces as they decide it's safer to go with the consensus of the group rather than to speak up.
This is basically the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes.
I still suspect that was a hoax or some kind of guerrilla marketing thing. The source was a reddit comment, and as far as I know nobody ever confirmed the PDF’s legitimacy. https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/7w0i2/pepsi_logo_a_r...
Still pretty amusing though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law in action.
Still pretty amusing though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law in action.
The .PDF metadata says it's from 2008, produced on a Mac running what was then a fairly high-end package (Acrobat Distiller from the InDesign CS3 suite.) Assuming nobody went to the trouble of adding bogus metadata, it's easy to believe that it really came from an ad agency.
Hah, that's pretty mild compared to some of the things I've seen come back from creative agencies.
Sometimes the agencies throw these dud concepts in there to push you to select one of the better concepts they spent more time on. Which makes you wonder what the other concepts were that didn't make it for the new Uber icon.
Sometimes the agencies throw these dud concepts in there to push you to select one of the better concepts they spent more time on. Which makes you wonder what the other concepts were that didn't make it for the new Uber icon.
It's past time to stop calling them "creative agencies." They're "advertisers," "hucksters," or "paid liars," and asking us to call them "creative" was pretty creative.
To be honest, lying on that level advertisers do requires quite a lot of creativity sometimes. So does placating conscience.
Even if I had said "Hucksters" then you would have most likely thought of something other than a creative agency. I could probably shave with the amount of edge you've got there.
It's like corporate timecube :)
But in all seriousness, how do people even get away with shit like this?
But in all seriousness, how do people even get away with shit like this?
This is absolutely a higher level of nonsense, but I've seen quite a lot of bullshit people are getting away with in web / social marketing. Basically, nobody in a "creative" agency has any fucking clue how statistics work, so they fudge some numbers and invent interpretations. Customers don't have a clue either, but they're compelled to believe because they spent money on it, and since actual sales data are hard to correlate with particular actions, the agency can extract money from their client as long as the client isn't doing too badly.
It reminds me of an article posted here a month ago[0]. Some juicy quotes: [1].
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872359
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10873226
It reminds me of an article posted here a month ago[0]. Some juicy quotes: [1].
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872359
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10873226
Similarly, I have rarely met an SEO or social media expert who wasn't full of shit, and I have to deal with these people on a regular basis.
I've read reports with analyses that were blatantly wrong from a statistic or technical perspective, I've had discussions about the value of 'meta keywords' and whatnot where google itself refuted their arguments. And the most 'effective' experts I found were only so because they'd do all sorts of shady things like set up blogs for link juice.
On the other hand, I have met plenty of people with deep knowledge of SEO and social media, but very few of them called themselves primarily experts in this area. Usually they'd be web developers/designers, or small creative studios, or just have some unsexy job description working for a big company.
I've read reports with analyses that were blatantly wrong from a statistic or technical perspective, I've had discussions about the value of 'meta keywords' and whatnot where google itself refuted their arguments. And the most 'effective' experts I found were only so because they'd do all sorts of shady things like set up blogs for link juice.
On the other hand, I have met plenty of people with deep knowledge of SEO and social media, but very few of them called themselves primarily experts in this area. Usually they'd be web developers/designers, or small creative studios, or just have some unsexy job description working for a big company.
Peter Arnell of the Arnell Group: http://gawker.com/244608/new-yorks-worst-bosses-peter-arnell
Oh man, I've never seen that before. I think the folks at that agency were DEFINITELY high when they came up with that report.
bduerst says it's typical. Are marketting professionals all high?
bduerst says it's typical. Are marketting professionals all high?
Except that it wasn't an agency at all. Kalanick headed the redesign himself, despite admitting that he didn't even know what kearning was when he started. From wired:
>>> Most CEOs hire experts—branding agencies that specialize in translating corporate values into fonts and colors—or tap an in-house team. Not Kalanick. For the past three years, he’s worked alongside Uber design director Shalin Amin and a dozen or so others, hammering out ideas from a stuffy space they call the War Room. Along the way, he studied up on concepts ranging from kerning to color palettes. “I didn’t know any of this stuff,” says Kalanick. “I just knew it was important, and so I wanted it to be good.”
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-inside-story-behind-ubers-c...
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-inside-story-behind-ubers-c...
> “I didn’t know any of this stuff,” says Kalanick. “I just knew it was important, and so I wanted it to be good.”
Translation: "I don't know anything about this, but I believe it is important, so I want it to be done right... and I somehow think I am the person to do that." This is why we all repair our own cars using hammers and pliers.
Translation: "I don't know anything about this, but I believe it is important, so I want it to be done right... and I somehow think I am the person to do that." This is why we all repair our own cars using hammers and pliers.
I was referring the pepsi one in the comment I was replying to!
Self-jumping shark
tl;dr
Kalanick jumps the shark.
Kalanick jumps the shark.
I don't frequently wish the loss of a job upon other people, but I dearly hope everyone involved in producing that document was fired for it, because there is not an iota of substance in those pages.
One iota, possibly. The "color theory" section on page 25 is actually halfway reasonable. (I like to imagine the employee working on that part was rolling their eyes wildly at the insanity going on around them.)
I was half-expecting to find something along the lines of "Ignore this /\ (also this \/)" somewhere on that page, as it's the only thing I saw in the whole document that didn't look like it fell out of some broken Markov chain generator.
Actually, I thought that the main concept of a logo that, when printed on a cylinder, had its white line seem to change its shape depending on horizontal angle, was pretty cool. But it was terrible to have to slog through all the other stuff.
A great satire of these:
https://medium.com/@localweb/forward-slash-the-story-of-how-...
Worth reading for the "Tri-Venn Diabrand"
https://medium.com/@localweb/forward-slash-the-story-of-how-...
Worth reading for the "Tri-Venn Diabrand"
[deleted]
My favorite part is when they align the golden ratio to get the white curve "just right"... and then just do a bunch of other random shit w/ the stripe. SCIENCE!
Genius. I haven't laughed this hard in ages.
The tagline on the following page, "dimensionalize exponentially" is just about my favorite phrase of all time.
This is what you get when you have a bunch of scientists and engineers looking for jobs in other markets.
Are you implying this is science? Because I don't see it being backed by any science.
Look at pages 21, 26, 27, I think they pulled in a scientist to help with those... I'm not saying its all science, but part of the BS is trying to be science-y.
Nah. None of that is science; it just has a few sciencey-sounding words in it. My guess would be they were trying to come up with a post-hoc "scientific basis" for their branding decisions?
The last page is particularly awful. Not only does it contain a glaring scientific error ("1 light year = 671 million miles per hour"), but it's completely meaningless from a branding perspective. I mean, what does "dimensionalize exponentially" even mean?
The last page is particularly awful. Not only does it contain a glaring scientific error ("1 light year = 671 million miles per hour"), but it's completely meaningless from a branding perspective. I mean, what does "dimensionalize exponentially" even mean?
I think it's just English lit majors who are also BBT fans.
So the new Pepsi logo apparently came back from the future. Why wasn't it in the movie then?
Is this a joke, or just groupthink at its finest?
That made my brain hurt.
Even after reading all the comments, I still wasn't ready for that.
Actually, this reminds me of "This Is a Generic Brand Video, by Dissolve"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YBtspm8j8M
It even has a wrinkled ethnic old man.
In other words, the new video shows that Uber executives lack the self-awareness to understand that they just made their company look like Walmart, Exxon-Mobile or Altria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YBtspm8j8M
It even has a wrinkled ethnic old man.
In other words, the new video shows that Uber executives lack the self-awareness to understand that they just made their company look like Walmart, Exxon-Mobile or Altria.
This reminds me of "Better Off Ted"[0], where the protagonist worked for veridian dynamics[1], a faceless multinational conglomerate.
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235547/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8OKMlqxLs
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235547/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8OKMlqxLs
I miss that show, never understood why it actually got cancelled.
Or John Oliver's "jangly guitar music":
https://youtu.be/X9wHzt6gBgI?t=2m21s
https://youtu.be/X9wHzt6gBgI?t=2m21s
Also Blue's Traveler's The Hook:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdz5kCaCRFM
"It doesn't matter what I say
So long as I sing with inflection
That makes you feel I'll convey
Some inner truth or vast reflection
But I've said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdz5kCaCRFM
"It doesn't matter what I say
So long as I sing with inflection
That makes you feel I'll convey
Some inner truth or vast reflection
But I've said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes"
Pop 101 - Marianas Trench:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpWkV7IBUw
"Get to the floor
And hear some words you should know
Like "DJ never let me go"
Or "Shots and then we'll lose control"
Or "baby, baby, baby, baby, baby"
How about one more last word like
"Hey girl, we've only got tonight"
Some things just go together like
Higher, desire, and fire
Higher, desire, and fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpWkV7IBUw
"Get to the floor
And hear some words you should know
Like "DJ never let me go"
Or "Shots and then we'll lose control"
Or "baby, baby, baby, baby, baby"
How about one more last word like
"Hey girl, we've only got tonight"
Some things just go together like
Higher, desire, and fire
Higher, desire, and fire"
In other words, the new video shows that Uber executives lack the self-awareness to understand that they just made their company look like Walmart, Exxon-Mobile or Altria.
Why would they not want to do that? Those companies are huge and successful.
And at least Exxon and Wal-Mart have instantly recognizable, sensible-looking corporate logos.
Why would they not want to do that? Those companies are huge and successful.
And at least Exxon and Wal-Mart have instantly recognizable, sensible-looking corporate logos.
That is absolutely gold. I have been in rebranding meetings where almost that exact video has been shown.
Any chance this was an immense practical joke on Uber or some other kind of troll?
No, the problem with that theory is that the whole rebrand as well as the video obviously cost a huge pile of money, and a CEO that burns cash "for shits and giggles" won't have his job for very long.
I dunno. Douglas Reynholm managed to outlast his father, despite being awarded Shithead of the Year by a feminist committee three years in a row. Hell, the guy put gold leaf in the water coolers, but he's managed to stick around.
I had to look that one up, but, uh, yea - your counterexample is a tv show character?
I did it for the yucks.
> That frame says “self-driving cars.” Their business plan appears to include firing all of their drivers.
Well, yes. I believe the CEO of Uber came out and said this a year or two ago. Once self-driving cars become a reality, that's basically what Uber is going to turn into. A fleet of autonomous vehicles that take you wherever you need to go, that won't cancel on you if a better fare pops up, and that will most likely not get into too many (or any) accidents. From a technology, efficiency, and public safety perspective...this seems like a better way to go.
Well, yes. I believe the CEO of Uber came out and said this a year or two ago. Once self-driving cars become a reality, that's basically what Uber is going to turn into. A fleet of autonomous vehicles that take you wherever you need to go, that won't cancel on you if a better fare pops up, and that will most likely not get into too many (or any) accidents. From a technology, efficiency, and public safety perspective...this seems like a better way to go.
At this point, any company based on road vehicles that doesn't plan on eventually firing all of its drivers is delusional or not paying the least bit of attention.
If I were a professional driver of any kind, I would be looking hard at career alternatives in the medium term.
If I were a professional driver of any kind, I would be looking hard at career alternatives in the medium term.
> that won't cancel on you if a better fare pops up
Ha, good luck with that.
Ha, good luck with that.
But then they would have to buy all of the cars.
With a 60 billion + valuation they probably could easily afford it.
I'm sure someone will make a ridesharing app for private owners of self driving cars to rent them out when they are not using them, though. The app maker would have to insure against damages, and the long term trend will be towards transportation as a service where you subscribe to a self driving car company and just get a car on demand rather than having one idle in your driveway, but some people will cling to private ownership and might use it.
I'm sure someone will make a ridesharing app for private owners of self driving cars to rent them out when they are not using them, though. The app maker would have to insure against damages, and the long term trend will be towards transportation as a service where you subscribe to a self driving car company and just get a car on demand rather than having one idle in your driveway, but some people will cling to private ownership and might use it.
The longer term trend could potentially be hire-on-demand for other goods and services too.
Which will be neatly ironic - capitalism and market pricing destroying the basis of private ownership.
Which will be neatly ironic - capitalism and market pricing destroying the basis of private ownership.
"the basis of private ownership" is not threatened at all. These goods are still privately owned by those who have incentive to maintain and improve them. That's efficiency. You buy and maintain the car if that's your core competency, I'll specialize elsewhere. Don't know about you, but I hate that expensive thing in my garage that sits idle all the time!
Valuation not cash on hand
A hundred times yes!!!
The main value that uber drivers bring to the table is not the brain that connects the engine to the driving wheel, it is that they use (and maintain) their own damned cars to do this lame pretense of a part time gig.
For this reason alone, and regardless of the technical feasibility, there will never be an Uber fleet of self driving cars. It's like saying a multilevel marketing company is going to start selling real products and will no longer rely on "get rich quick" schemes to reach out to customers. Even if they tried, the whole pyramid would implode under their feet faster than what any corporation could possible implement the change.
The main value that uber drivers bring to the table is not the brain that connects the engine to the driving wheel, it is that they use (and maintain) their own damned cars to do this lame pretense of a part time gig.
For this reason alone, and regardless of the technical feasibility, there will never be an Uber fleet of self driving cars. It's like saying a multilevel marketing company is going to start selling real products and will no longer rely on "get rich quick" schemes to reach out to customers. Even if they tried, the whole pyramid would implode under their feet faster than what any corporation could possible implement the change.
I'm not sure why, but it seems many comments on this thread seem to have taken to the idea that because Uber would use autonomous vehicles, that means Uber would own the vehicles. Though that is a possibility, it is still also possible that you would rent out your self-driving car when you're not using it. Meaning the same business model would continue. I suggest we may see a mix of these two models.
I also thought this was already the common analysis ... the drivers are ultimately cannibalizing their own jobs.
Not really. Even if nobody signed up for Uber, there's plenty of companies investing in self-driving cars. Once there's a fully autonomous car on the market, the job of taxi driver is done for (with or without Uber).
In times of peak demand, surge pricing goes into effect to encourage the artificially-intelligent cars to get out and serve customers.
> won't cancel on you if a better fare pops up
That depends on the policy configured by whoever controls the fleet.
That depends on the policy configured by whoever controls the fleet.
[deleted](7)
Yeah, my current thinking is that any Uber drivers who aren't planning for this eventuality down the line deserve to be blindsided. Uber has made it very clear that this is their strategic direction.
I think it's a little callous to say they DESERVE to be blindsided. A lot of people get into driving because they don't have any other options. They probably don't have the resources and education to be dialed into what's on the forefront of technology. Have you read this article about how driverless trucks is basically going to decimate the American middle class?
https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-goin...
I'm in healthcare tech, and a lot of my low income and middle class patients across the US are truck drivers to support themselves and their families. These people often don't even have internet access or smartphones. I have no idea what these people are going to be able to do for work when this change happens. Most likely they will all apply for and go on disability as that more and more seems to be becoming the new welfare stopgap in the US.
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-goin...
I'm in healthcare tech, and a lot of my low income and middle class patients across the US are truck drivers to support themselves and their families. These people often don't even have internet access or smartphones. I have no idea what these people are going to be able to do for work when this change happens. Most likely they will all apply for and go on disability as that more and more seems to be becoming the new welfare stopgap in the US.
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Fair point, and perhaps my wording was a bit harsh. That said, drivers talk, and I would be pretty surprised if drivers weren't aware of this.
It would make for a pretty interesting survey. I wonder what would happen if drivers didn't know and suddenly found out. Guessing many would stay the course because they need the income.
It would make for a pretty interesting survey. I wonder what would happen if drivers didn't know and suddenly found out. Guessing many would stay the course because they need the income.
From a company whose marketing strategy is "act like assholes", with a business plan of "break the law and then whine when anyone points out that we're a bunch of criminals in suits", nothing surprises me anymore, including the fact that they're still in business.
I still remember when the HN groupthink LOVED Uber.
I am not nostalgic. I like it better this way.
I am not nostalgic. I like it better this way.
Some of us have hated them all along.
I'll have you know I hated Uber before it was cool.
I'd like everyone here to know that I was always indifferent towards Uber and still am.
I also hate the regulations they cite as a reason why Uber should not exist.
No, the regulations should not exist. We could have had Uber and more competitors sooner if not for taking calculated legal risk against archaic institutions of regulation surrounding everything today. Almost all progress is a constant battle not against innovation or creativity but against legal traps keeping you from thinking outside the box.
No, the regulations should not exist. We could have had Uber and more competitors sooner if not for taking calculated legal risk against archaic institutions of regulation surrounding everything today. Almost all progress is a constant battle not against innovation or creativity but against legal traps keeping you from thinking outside the box.
Why is Uber better than regulated systems? What is superior about poorly-paid drivers, lack of labour rights, surge pricing, lack of disabled accommodations, no guarantee of service in all areas, lack of fare caps, no concessionary travel, having to use a smartphone to pay, unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers, generic unmarked vehicles, etc.?
> What is superior about poorly-paid drivers,
There's a labour market for that.
> lack of labour rights,
That's for the government to deal with.
> surge pricing,
Surge pricing is awesome: at least you can still get a cab if you are willing to pay. As opposed to no cab at any price.
> lack of disabled accommodations,
Yeah, that's annoying for those in need. I propose giving disabled people more money, so they can then vote with their newly enlarged wallets. (And perhaps there's something more efficient for them than enticing taxi drivers.)
> no guarantee of service in all areas,
Why should city dwellers subsidise those yokels?
> lack of fare caps,
As long as the fare structure is known before I get into the cab, no problem.
> no concessionary travel,
Just give poor people more money. No need for concessions. (I've never seen any regulated taxi with concession fares. Only in public transport.)
> having to use a smartphone to pay,
> unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers,
Not less knowledgeable than most `normal' cabbies, as far as I can tell. But, depends on the area. Eg London has some pretty knowledgeable cabbies.
> generic unmarked vehicles, etc.?
Who cares? You can pay more for an UberBlack, if you want to have a non-generic car.
There's a labour market for that.
> lack of labour rights,
That's for the government to deal with.
> surge pricing,
Surge pricing is awesome: at least you can still get a cab if you are willing to pay. As opposed to no cab at any price.
> lack of disabled accommodations,
Yeah, that's annoying for those in need. I propose giving disabled people more money, so they can then vote with their newly enlarged wallets. (And perhaps there's something more efficient for them than enticing taxi drivers.)
> no guarantee of service in all areas,
Why should city dwellers subsidise those yokels?
> lack of fare caps,
As long as the fare structure is known before I get into the cab, no problem.
> no concessionary travel,
Just give poor people more money. No need for concessions. (I've never seen any regulated taxi with concession fares. Only in public transport.)
> having to use a smartphone to pay,
> unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers,
Not less knowledgeable than most `normal' cabbies, as far as I can tell. But, depends on the area. Eg London has some pretty knowledgeable cabbies.
> generic unmarked vehicles, etc.?
Who cares? You can pay more for an UberBlack, if you want to have a non-generic car.
I'm a big fan of Uber, but unknowledgeable drivers are a real problem. Here in St. Louis I see a lot of suburbanites coming into the city to drive people to places they've never been. I had one guy try to take me across a bridge that's famously closed for construction. Every cabbie knows that bridge is closed. Shit, everybody on the entire Southside knows that bridge is closed.
Uber will reimburse you if your driver screws up. It would be better if they didn't make mistakes in the first place, but this type of accountability never existed among yellow cabs.
Drivers are poorly paid in systems that have taxi medallions, too.
I would ask a few taxi drivers how their compensation structure works and if they are independent contractors or not.
I asked one in BC, Canada recently, and found out they have to take monthly $100/day taxi lease, minimum 1 month and then make that money + more back with whatever hours they can get. I'm guessing the drivers are 'independent contractors' too.
I asked one in BC, Canada recently, and found out they have to take monthly $100/day taxi lease, minimum 1 month and then make that money + more back with whatever hours they can get. I'm guessing the drivers are 'independent contractors' too.
Uber is highly regulated by the forces of market competition. Forces which are far better at protecting and serving consumers than the government.
>What is superior about purely paid drivers?
Low cost of transportation for consumers. No driver is entitled to a job. The efficient movement of goods and people are far more important than preserving jobs from being destroyed by technology that enhances the well-being of society.
>What is superior about purely paid drivers?
Low cost of transportation for consumers. No driver is entitled to a job. The efficient movement of goods and people are far more important than preserving jobs from being destroyed by technology that enhances the well-being of society.
Now while I am arguing for significantly reduced regulation around Uber, I would not say markets in general protect or serve consumers better. If markets had their way, anyone could sell a product that claims to do anything else, and if the consumers cannot organize information and catalog what products are fraudulent then people are vulnerable to deception.
That already happens today, in our "tightly regulated" market. Wonder drugs or miracle cures or instant diets or self help books claim to fix everything and do nothing. Drop regulation and it gets worse. Consumers are simply bad at organizing information about businesses, though I would concede that might be partially due to an expectation that "the government will take care of it".
Other things - environmental pollution / destruction (and other secondary costs of business), exploitative employment practices (particularly exploiting the poor and uneducated), using economies of scale to drive out competition, rent seeking, collusion, asset hoarding, and fraud all occur in a natural market and to varying degrees government involvement helps abate some - certainly not all, and certainly not perfectly - these anti-consumer effects of business.
You can look at almost any industry and point at gratuitous and stifling regulation, very often used as shut door tactics by wealthy market players who use force of law to stop competition, because playing in markets usually keeps you honest. Just because Uber is innovative does not exonerate them from how they are playing legal hardball just as bad as many of the companies that preceded them, and if given the opportunity would not erect the same walls to competition their fore-bearers put up. Besides the concerns about workers rights for their drivers, they are actively lobbying cities around the globe to both reduce regulation for themselves and increase it for Lyft or other possible competitors.
That already happens today, in our "tightly regulated" market. Wonder drugs or miracle cures or instant diets or self help books claim to fix everything and do nothing. Drop regulation and it gets worse. Consumers are simply bad at organizing information about businesses, though I would concede that might be partially due to an expectation that "the government will take care of it".
Other things - environmental pollution / destruction (and other secondary costs of business), exploitative employment practices (particularly exploiting the poor and uneducated), using economies of scale to drive out competition, rent seeking, collusion, asset hoarding, and fraud all occur in a natural market and to varying degrees government involvement helps abate some - certainly not all, and certainly not perfectly - these anti-consumer effects of business.
You can look at almost any industry and point at gratuitous and stifling regulation, very often used as shut door tactics by wealthy market players who use force of law to stop competition, because playing in markets usually keeps you honest. Just because Uber is innovative does not exonerate them from how they are playing legal hardball just as bad as many of the companies that preceded them, and if given the opportunity would not erect the same walls to competition their fore-bearers put up. Besides the concerns about workers rights for their drivers, they are actively lobbying cities around the globe to both reduce regulation for themselves and increase it for Lyft or other possible competitors.
I think you're being too narrow in your conception of what markets do. I'm not denying the existence of snake oil salesman--they absolutely do exist--but there are many ways markets combat such behavior. I suspect much of this gets crowded out by the existing regulatory regime, but it's not hard to envision how it would work outside of the status quo (with substantially less cost to consumers).
Underwriters' Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Amazon Reviews, and Yelp are all good examples of effective, though imperfect, market regulation. Producers have no interest in harming their consumers and consumers have no interest in dealing with producers who will harm them. Everyone has an incentive to find ways to ensure mutually beneficial trade. However, when regulatory regimes are monopolized, a new set of incentives emerge which often have nothing to do with consumer safety. Worst of all, consumers and producers have no means to express their dissatisfaction and exit the regime. This is inherently different from companies like Yelp who must fight on a daily basis to continue delivering value to their customers.
Underwriters' Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Amazon Reviews, and Yelp are all good examples of effective, though imperfect, market regulation. Producers have no interest in harming their consumers and consumers have no interest in dealing with producers who will harm them. Everyone has an incentive to find ways to ensure mutually beneficial trade. However, when regulatory regimes are monopolized, a new set of incentives emerge which often have nothing to do with consumer safety. Worst of all, consumers and producers have no means to express their dissatisfaction and exit the regime. This is inherently different from companies like Yelp who must fight on a daily basis to continue delivering value to their customers.
> Producers have no interest in harming their consumers
If you mean by 'interest' what I think you do, they have an interest only in making money. They have no more interest in NOT harming their consumers than they do in harming their consumers -- and producers of inherently harmful products (cigarettes being the obvious incontestable example) in fact do have an interest in harming their users. But there are PLENTY of producers who have demonstrated an enthusiasm to harming their users, if it sells product.
If you mean by 'interest' what I think you do, they have an interest only in making money. They have no more interest in NOT harming their consumers than they do in harming their consumers -- and producers of inherently harmful products (cigarettes being the obvious incontestable example) in fact do have an interest in harming their users. But there are PLENTY of producers who have demonstrated an enthusiasm to harming their users, if it sells product.
Except the whole point of my argument is that while I personally believe in the ethical capacity of fully free markets to work, it requires all participants be informed, intelligent, and educated on how markets work, and they must be rational.
Go walk down the main street of any town in the US and realize how few people are actually educated, or rational, or functional. It is absolutely a product of both culture and the state as it exists that most normal people are raised to become these... zombies? But they are not going to use rational means to pursue products, which is why we have this nanny state consumer production giant looming over everything.
But like I said, we cannot just dissolve those overabundant regulations and growth stifling control with people as stupid as they are. That is just a recipe for pandemic exploitation to degrees even greater than what our current advertising industry pumps out. Just look at how often you hear a story of someone or their kid spending a months worth of wages on some shitty Android game because they were raised to be completely oblivious to obvious swindling.
If we could raise a generation and/or a nation of smart, rational, informed consumers, we could easily replace all the certification and licensing that slows innovation to a crawl with self regulation. Until then we are stuck in a world where people buy self-help books, booze, and Viagra instead of paying off their credit cards.
Go walk down the main street of any town in the US and realize how few people are actually educated, or rational, or functional. It is absolutely a product of both culture and the state as it exists that most normal people are raised to become these... zombies? But they are not going to use rational means to pursue products, which is why we have this nanny state consumer production giant looming over everything.
But like I said, we cannot just dissolve those overabundant regulations and growth stifling control with people as stupid as they are. That is just a recipe for pandemic exploitation to degrees even greater than what our current advertising industry pumps out. Just look at how often you hear a story of someone or their kid spending a months worth of wages on some shitty Android game because they were raised to be completely oblivious to obvious swindling.
If we could raise a generation and/or a nation of smart, rational, informed consumers, we could easily replace all the certification and licensing that slows innovation to a crawl with self regulation. Until then we are stuck in a world where people buy self-help books, booze, and Viagra instead of paying off their credit cards.
Yes, things have dramatically improved, but there are still taboo subjects on HN. For example, try saying any of the same things about YC's own AirBnB and see how that goes over.
In fact, this very article had an early comment[1] comparing Uber's logo re-design to AirBnB's paperclip thingy[2]. That comment is now deleted. No way to tell if it was self-deleted or mod deleted, but either way it seems someone wasn't comfortable having that on here, for whatever reason.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11038131
[2] http://blog.airbnb.com/belong-anywhere
In fact, this very article had an early comment[1] comparing Uber's logo re-design to AirBnB's paperclip thingy[2]. That comment is now deleted. No way to tell if it was self-deleted or mod deleted, but either way it seems someone wasn't comfortable having that on here, for whatever reason.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11038131
[2] http://blog.airbnb.com/belong-anywhere
The most upvoted and commented story about AirBnB is "Airbnb Nightmare: No End In Sight"[1]. Also in the top 10 are "The Moment Of Truth For Airbnb As Users Home Is Utterly Trashed"[2], "Airbnb Victim Speaks Again: Homeless, Scared And Angry"[3] and "Dear AirBNB, No thank you for the XXX Freak Fest"[4]. There are more in the top 20.
A single comment sounds like poor evidence to me.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2820615
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2820605
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7407796
A single comment sounds like poor evidence to me.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2820615
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2820605
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7407796
I draw the opposite conclusion, as all of your examples are from several years ago. Three of your four links are more than 1600 days old!
Ever since AirBnB became the most valuable company in YC's portfolio, there has been a remarkable groupthink on HN where everything they do is good and criticism basically vanishes. Yet criticism of a non-YC company like Uber gets upvoted and creates a big dogpile, even when it could be equally applied to both companies.
Ever since AirBnB became the most valuable company in YC's portfolio, there has been a remarkable groupthink on HN where everything they do is good and criticism basically vanishes. Yet criticism of a non-YC company like Uber gets upvoted and creates a big dogpile, even when it could be equally applied to both companies.
The "past few years" is a bigger sample than just "the past year", so assuming the posts are equally distributed through time, you're still going to get more of them in the first bucket.
Still, from the top 10 of past year:
"Why Airbnb is dead to me" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10291070)
"The two faces of Airbnb" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487447)
"AirBNB why did you terminate my account? – An Open Letter to AirBNB" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10090119)
"Living and Dying on Airbnb" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531229)
And many of the others in the top are not really about AirBNB itself, just of related topics. I don't see much praise.
Still, from the top 10 of past year:
"Why Airbnb is dead to me" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10291070)
"The two faces of Airbnb" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487447)
"AirBNB why did you terminate my account? – An Open Letter to AirBNB" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10090119)
"Living and Dying on Airbnb" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531229)
And many of the others in the top are not really about AirBNB itself, just of related topics. I don't see much praise.
The requirement for a late model, four dour, Uber approved vechicle is brilliant. With this requirement, you exclude a whole socioeconomic sector of the population out of the hiring process. What's ironic is these poeople might be better off?
I didn't quite understand it at first. I looked at the NY Uber approved vechicles, and threw up my hands.
I now get it. Oh, and it's not about car safety.
I didn't quite understand it at first. I looked at the NY Uber approved vechicles, and threw up my hands.
I now get it. Oh, and it's not about car safety.
What was there ever to get? Their motto was "everyone's private driver", not "everyone's college buddy with a car"
People with private drivers get driven in expensive cars.
People with private drivers get driven in expensive cars.
It looks like NYC stands out, according to this page it's usually year 2000+ : http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-car-requirements/#UberX_C...
https://brand.uber.com/#bits-atoms
> "We leave no bit or atom unturned, to create industries that serve people, and not the other way around."
I thought I heard wrong, I had to rewind it.
This whole rebranding proposal must have seemed and felt so incredibly different to the Uber executives within the context of their conference rooms.
> "We leave no bit or atom unturned, to create industries that serve people, and not the other way around."
I thought I heard wrong, I had to rewind it.
This whole rebranding proposal must have seemed and felt so incredibly different to the Uber executives within the context of their conference rooms.
Yes, it is a good thing that they don't create people that serve industries. That would be creepy.
I thought they were trying to allay people's fears of their self-driving cars going full Skynet, but now I realize I probably misinterpreted what they meant by "the other way around": "We leave no person unturned, to create industries that serve bits and atoms."
Yeah, that would mean creating... self-driving cars. Oh, wait...
Well, this sounds creepy either way. "To Serve Man" comes to mind.
That's the part where I lost it as well. I simply had to close the video after hearing that, it made me so uncomfortable.
I am so, so confused by Uber's marketing video. I feel like its satirical. I'd love to hear if anyone has the inside scoop of how it was made/ how Uber employees feel about it.
You could email them and ask if it is a real ad, but their PR person will probably respond and give you a horribly unprofessional response a la Airbnb:
> We emailed Airbnb spokesman Christopher Nulty to ask whether the library ad was "real." He responded by email, "as opposed to a fake one :)"
> A follow up email, explaining that we were in fact seeking confirmation as to whether the ads are actually from Airbnb received the following response: "Are you seriously writing on this?"
> Nulty did not respond to another follow up email.
I'm actually AMAZED their PR dude has not been fired over his juvenile and unprofessional response to the reporter. You had ONE job!!
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-aggress...
> We emailed Airbnb spokesman Christopher Nulty to ask whether the library ad was "real." He responded by email, "as opposed to a fake one :)"
> A follow up email, explaining that we were in fact seeking confirmation as to whether the ads are actually from Airbnb received the following response: "Are you seriously writing on this?"
> Nulty did not respond to another follow up email.
I'm actually AMAZED their PR dude has not been fired over his juvenile and unprofessional response to the reporter. You had ONE job!!
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-aggress...
WOW. Unbelievable. Who the hell hires these people? They make you go through half a dozen technicals if you're going to be an engineer, but they let the homeless guy across the street run their PR department?
It's shit like this that brings down the reputation of the entire industry.
It was made with bits. And atoms.
Don't forget BLT sandwiches! And moms.
And kittens. The kitten was the moment I literally LOL'ed.
Don't forget that Uber also moves icecreams.
Uber is using bits to transmit the video of the atoms.
Feels like it was made for investors more so than the consumers.
Would you invest in a company that showed you a video like that?!?
I imagine that when the narrator finished, she went to her agent and had this conversation:
"Okay ... seriously, what the f--- was that all about?"
'Don't worry about it, their money is just as green as anyone else's. Just don't forget about the gig across town tomorrow.'
"Got it. But I really need to take a shower now."
"Okay ... seriously, what the f--- was that all about?"
'Don't worry about it, their money is just as green as anyone else's. Just don't forget about the gig across town tomorrow.'
"Got it. But I really need to take a shower now."
Yes, surely that must have been satire, and Uber employees thought it was hilarious?
I dunno, is this not just the inevitable collision of the current post-hipster aesthetic and the usual corporate PHB nonsense? I mean, what exactly did you expect the uber brand video to be like? How could it possibly have been any different from this?
http://carles.buzz/the-contemporary-conformist/
http://carles.buzz/the-contemporary-conformist/
> post-hipster aesthetic
It's more than that. It's anti-aesthetical postmodernist anti-intellectualism wrapped up into into a single construct of pure and utter nonsense. This is what happens when herd mentality really takes off at a company. You produce work in a vacuum.
It's more than that. It's anti-aesthetical postmodernist anti-intellectualism wrapped up into into a single construct of pure and utter nonsense. This is what happens when herd mentality really takes off at a company. You produce work in a vacuum.
Totally can see this happening... it's unfathomable to me how this pile of nonsensical steaming dogcrap could get approval through multiple layers of professional review before it went live. It's the tone deaf airbnb ads happening all over again.
Too many yes-men and everyone starts believing their own bullshit.
Too many yes-men and everyone starts believing their own bullshit.
It's anti-aesthetical postmodernist anti-intellectualism wrapped up into into a single construct of pure and utter nonsense.
I see what you did there!
I see what you did there!
Felt like I was watching an episode of Silicon Valley, just needed the Hooli logo at the end. Think I threw up a little at some parts (am allergic to cheese), great comedy though, would recommend A++
Search for the still frame labeled 'Self-Driving Cars'.
Thank you iStock photo.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/aerial-bangkok-riverside-do...
Thank you iStock photo.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/aerial-bangkok-riverside-do...
When I watched this video yesterday I thought they are trying too hard to explain what their new logo means because no one will see the connection between the strange new logo and the Uber we already know.
Also - complete marketing wank.
Also - complete marketing wank.
Branding has an element of magic to it. You are conjuring something up out of thin air with the intended effect of surprising and delighting the people that see it.
The act of magic is to pay very very close attention to the little details that others miss, in order to produce illusions. For a brand, this is done largely at the executive / investor level. A few people create a belief system that the whole company can buy into.
Part of this belief system is the way the company is designed. The "content-free" dubstep video is an excellent demonstration of how the high-level concepts conjured up by the branding team slowly wind their way through the company.
Every company is in a constant battle for relevance in the hearts and minds of the people that work for it and the people that patronize it. If you don't keep fighting it, then people slowly stop caring and before you know it, you've got Uber drivers beating up their riders. That stuff is going to happen anyway, but again, it's the small details that matter, such as how the company responds to it.
I didn't think the video was particularly profound, but it did remind me of what makes Uber such a great idea and a great company. Little details like the ones I saw in the design video would subtly remind me of the magic that Uber is trying to conjure every time I used the app.
The act of magic is to pay very very close attention to the little details that others miss, in order to produce illusions. For a brand, this is done largely at the executive / investor level. A few people create a belief system that the whole company can buy into.
Part of this belief system is the way the company is designed. The "content-free" dubstep video is an excellent demonstration of how the high-level concepts conjured up by the branding team slowly wind their way through the company.
Every company is in a constant battle for relevance in the hearts and minds of the people that work for it and the people that patronize it. If you don't keep fighting it, then people slowly stop caring and before you know it, you've got Uber drivers beating up their riders. That stuff is going to happen anyway, but again, it's the small details that matter, such as how the company responds to it.
I didn't think the video was particularly profound, but it did remind me of what makes Uber such a great idea and a great company. Little details like the ones I saw in the design video would subtly remind me of the magic that Uber is trying to conjure every time I used the app.
To me, the logo reminds me of an asshole, which is particularly appropriate, because Uber are a bunch of assholes.
On the bottom of https://brand.uber.com/#our-new-look, they explain the roots of the new icon as well:
01. The Bit At the center of our app icons is the Bit—the symbol of our technology.
02. Product shape Surrounding the Bit is a shape that denotes the product and represents the atoms moved by our technology. For the rider app, this shape is a circle.
03. Grid line To convey the rider story of a trip in progress or the arrival at a destination, a single line connects the Bit with the shape around it.
04. Patterns and colors Behind the other components is a canvas of color and pattern, another representation of the physical world that symbolizes the cities and people we serve.
EDIT: The leading zeros in the numbered list above were featured on the site. What significance could that hold?
01. The Bit At the center of our app icons is the Bit—the symbol of our technology.
02. Product shape Surrounding the Bit is a shape that denotes the product and represents the atoms moved by our technology. For the rider app, this shape is a circle.
03. Grid line To convey the rider story of a trip in progress or the arrival at a destination, a single line connects the Bit with the shape around it.
04. Patterns and colors Behind the other components is a canvas of color and pattern, another representation of the physical world that symbolizes the cities and people we serve.
EDIT: The leading zeros in the numbered list above were featured on the site. What significance could that hold?
You shouldn't have to explain a logo or icon.
Look at any good logo[1] and it's self explanatory.
[1]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Fe...
Look at any good logo[1] and it's self explanatory.
[1]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Fe...
The app icon is horrible. It replaces something recognizable with a completely corporate looking image of nothingness. The brand is bland!
Agreed, the old one was beautiful and distinctive, and conveyed a sense of greatness, at least to me.
I get the need for a nice rousing rebranding video, and I get that others tend to go over the top with superfluities and appeals to emotion, but Uber's 'connecting the bits and atoms for the first time' just pushed me so far beyond eyerolling that it felt like I was being shown a video of Kalanick huffing his own fart.
The 'Pepsi gravitational field' doc is pretty out there, but it seems to at least include rationales behind their process. Uber's just feels like they made the logo and then tried to connect it to some broader philosophical reasoning which just screamed pretension.
The 'Pepsi gravitational field' doc is pretty out there, but it seems to at least include rationales behind their process. Uber's just feels like they made the logo and then tried to connect it to some broader philosophical reasoning which just screamed pretension.
> Uber's 'connecting the bits and atoms for the first time' just pushed me so far beyond eyerolling that it felt like I was being shown a video of Kalanick huffing his own fart.
As a San Francisco company they should fit right in at the smuggiest city in the country:
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104282/smuggy-san-francisco-to...
As a San Francisco company they should fit right in at the smuggiest city in the country:
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104282/smuggy-san-francisco-to...
I don't know if Travis Kalanick smokes pot, but if he does, then yes.
If you thought Yahoo’s weekend charrette between CEO
Marissa Meyer and her design team was scary, try an
extended process of more than a year of a non-
designer CEO micro-managing the process.
In the "design team" photo, it looks like he was pretty baked when he combed his hair that afternoon.
Tacky nonsense aside, the weird neurotic insistence on "human stuff" just reminds me of Blade Runner's Tyrell Corporation.
I can hear the Uber voiceover woman saying: "Do you like our owl?"
I can hear the Uber voiceover woman saying: "Do you like our owl?"
That's Ken Thompson(seated) and Dennis Ritchie(standing) at a PDP-11 in 1972 at 0:18 into the video.
Oh gosh, I didn't realize how heinous that video was until just now. Uber ego.
Piling on, the representation of a bit in the beginning fades in and out. That makes no sense. Reminds me of Orwell's essay on writing, how poor writing is a necessary feature of propaganda.
I blame Mad Men and "The Carousel" for making it more possible to sell companies stuff like this.
Complex and seemingly pretentious design pitches are actually a good way to explain to a company the way a design or design metaphor might subconsciously impact or impress its users. There are two problems here though: 1) the pitch is inane, for the reasons pointed out in the linked post, and 2) even if the idea weren't dumb, spelling it out explicitly for the customer is a great way to ruin the magic. (Fedex doesn't tell everyone to look for the arrow in their logo, and Gmail's slogan isn't "The envelope is also an M for mail!") Good design is often subtle of even invisible, and not just logos.
Well said, never realized the arrow in FedEx. Yeah, I'm still to become a Uber user, but reading that article made me feel like they're over-doing it a bit much.
I have a theory about large (and well known) cooperation reguarding brands.
Google re-branded themseleve just last year (before the Alphabet switch over). People hated the new typeface etc, etc. but that doesn't stop anyone from using Gmail or Google search.
Point being, when you get to a certain size it really don't matter if you use comic san for your corporate type face. That's not going to change the public perception of you the company.
All the brand work, rebranding etc etc are just a way to make the people within the company feel good about themselves.
Google re-branded themseleve just last year (before the Alphabet switch over). People hated the new typeface etc, etc. but that doesn't stop anyone from using Gmail or Google search.
Point being, when you get to a certain size it really don't matter if you use comic san for your corporate type face. That's not going to change the public perception of you the company.
All the brand work, rebranding etc etc are just a way to make the people within the company feel good about themselves.
That sounds accurate, most people don't like change too much because they get used to it, but Google at least didn't do something as extreme as Uber. But you're right, it wont stop people from using the service.
Convoluted pitches and creative ideas exited all along. The problem is no one (from either the client nor the agency side) is willing to come out and call bullshit on bad ideas.
I dislike Uber for reasons I can't really articulate, they just are not for me. I wait aeons for the night bus rather than just get a cab, I don't even think 'Uber'. So I am new to the branding, having not seen what went on before.
Despite the dislike, I think this brand website is extremely slick and quite inspirational. Not bad for Wordpress. The video isn't bad either, as far as these things go. I still do not buy into the brand though.
Despite the dislike, I think this brand website is extremely slick and quite inspirational. Not bad for Wordpress. The video isn't bad either, as far as these things go. I still do not buy into the brand though.
Have you ever considered taking Lyft?
I'm really hoping one of these drone cab companies rebrands themselves as Johnny Cab.
Before shredding this mess, let us first give credit where it is due. They did get the age of the universe about right. General consensus right now places it at 13.8 billion years, and that is when all matter in the universe was created. However, not all atoms were “born” then, as they indicate, as most have been generated through fusion in stars and supernova.
To be pedantic at the level the madartlab.com folks seem to be going after, the video doesn't state that all atoms were born 13.8 billion years ago. It says "the atom" was born 13.8 billion years ago. This is correct.
http://patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm
It took 300,000 years for conditions to get the point where neutral atoms could form. That's still about 13.8 billion years ago to a reasonable margin of error. It's entirely correct to say that "the atom" was born then. This is the point in time from which the cosmic microwave background dates from, so it's arguably our view of the Big Bang.
We'll see about the rest of the video now.
To be pedantic at the level the madartlab.com folks seem to be going after, the video doesn't state that all atoms were born 13.8 billion years ago. It says "the atom" was born 13.8 billion years ago. This is correct.
http://patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm
It took 300,000 years for conditions to get the point where neutral atoms could form. That's still about 13.8 billion years ago to a reasonable margin of error. It's entirely correct to say that "the atom" was born then. This is the point in time from which the cosmic microwave background dates from, so it's arguably our view of the Big Bang.
We'll see about the rest of the video now.
someone from marketing is Peter Thiel fan http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/08/vc-peter-thiel-you-can-eit...
I thought their branding was pretty good before they did this. I find the app icon particularly mystifying.
I thought it was a new "app is updating" image provided by my phone at first
I thought it was some sort of chinese new year's thing like in trivia crack.
I was going with Pacman, now middle-aged, eating square dots for fiber.
looks like a toilet seat to me
They want to move away from the "black car" roots that was embodied by the original branding. Silver badge, dark motifs, etc. all evoke the limo/upscale transportation service and the new brand is all about the ways they've moved beyond that.
I personally don't like the work too much but I get why they had to rebrand. The biggest challenge I see is the disconnect between what their internal culture appears to be to us techies (extremely cutthroat, willing to bend rules to sabotage competitors) vs. the brand they present to the world (we love kittens, we move cities).
I personally don't like the work too much but I get why they had to rebrand. The biggest challenge I see is the disconnect between what their internal culture appears to be to us techies (extremely cutthroat, willing to bend rules to sabotage competitors) vs. the brand they present to the world (we love kittens, we move cities).
Ah, I guess that reason for rebranding does make sense. Still really don't get the app icon, though.
Hard for me to find their icon on my phone now. Maybe I'll get used to it, but the big U used to stand out quite a bit.
That video reminds me of one of those ads for Veridian Dynamics from Better Off Ted.
Link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8OKMlqxLs
Link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8OKMlqxLs
[deleted]
[deleted]
It reminds me of Veridian Dynamics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_bPobs8T5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_bPobs8T5w
Oh, my. that video is not going to help dissuade the notion for some that the new logos are reminiscent of assholes because the centre apparently resembles an anus:
http://gizmodo.com/ubers-new-logo-its-an-asshole-1756692669
Noticed the same opinion from others elsewhere, including Twitter.
Noticed the same opinion from others elsewhere, including Twitter.
Not quite as bad as the logo fail from the Office of Government Control (OGC) in the UK.
http://www.boredpanda.com/worst-logo-fails-ever/
http://www.boredpanda.com/worst-logo-fails-ever/
This is one of the most cringeworthy things I've seen in a while. I wonder how much they ended up spending on this...
I don't get why the writer is so surprised. Marketing is a dodgy industry. So many advertisements contain lies our bullshit - most often small ones, sometimes large. And it's all pushed onto an audience that is ignorant or at the very least accustomed to the barrage.
Dear OP, thank you. My brain must have gone into complete shutdown because I could only think of one word, "terrible" to describe this video. Such a terse dismissal is an obvious disservice to the level of awfulness that Uber continues to unleash on the world.
It's uncannily similar to this!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sbi.SBFree...
And I thought Facebook forever owned the moniker Supreme-Lame-Ass-Company-Of-The-Millenium. Uber wins in a landslide.
It's like how everyone thought that Carl Lewis would forever hold the 100M dash record and then Usain Bolt comes in and obliterates it.
It's like how everyone thought that Carl Lewis would forever hold the 100M dash record and then Usain Bolt comes in and obliterates it.
Making fun of them here is cute. You know what will hurt them? If you start taking Lyft.
Please do!
The sentiment behind it reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMQhOm-Dqo
Problem is, it seems a little disingenuous
Problem is, it seems a little disingenuous
Uber just needs to get over themselves. You're a taxi dispatch company with an app. Stop fronting like you're using cutting edge technology to cure cancer or brokering world peace.
Just updated so I could see the new app icon and actually loled IRL. Someone trolling pretty hard, they couldn't even put the U rightside up. Glad to see they're spending that 2x preference money wisely.
Ohhh it's supposed to be a sideways U? I thought it was a C and couldn't understand why the heck they made their logo the letter C.
[deleted]
I wonder how much of their most recent round of funding went towards this.
The author forgot to mention how horrible the new app icon is.
It has a fucking kitten in it!
I love kittens, but jesus... that's an embarrassingly egregious appeal to das cute!
Overall, this is epic comedy. 5 stars, would recommend!
I love kittens, but jesus... that's an embarrassingly egregious appeal to das cute!
Overall, this is epic comedy. 5 stars, would recommend!
[deleted]
Their new logo always makes me think I have an app on my iOS home screen that is not quite finished installing! Annoying!
This is why I tend to buy the idea that Monster intentionally hides satanic themes in their branding.
[deleted]
They leave no bit or atom unturned. I'm inspired!
[deleted]
Yes. Next question?
> Their business plan appears to include firing all of their drivers.
But this was obvious from day one, and reiterated by all their messages. When the tech is ready, humans will be expelled from the loop.
It is open information, and market seems to be OK with it. Ergo: most jobs will be history soon (also well-known obvious observation). Those who adjust first will reap the rewards.
But this was obvious from day one, and reiterated by all their messages. When the tech is ready, humans will be expelled from the loop.
It is open information, and market seems to be OK with it. Ergo: most jobs will be history soon (also well-known obvious observation). Those who adjust first will reap the rewards.
Most jobs history soon? This is as baseless as uber s marketing.
The brand video reads a little pompous and I haven't really taken a liking to the new icon yet, but I don't think the concept in the brand video is really that faulty. Uber is one of first companies to integrate software with an external consumer-facing physical service on a big, meaningful scale.
The whole bit-and-atom routine may be a little cheesy if you are a marketing skeptic, but it's fairly reasonable by Corporate Marketing Speak standards.
The whole bit-and-atom routine may be a little cheesy if you are a marketing skeptic, but it's fairly reasonable by Corporate Marketing Speak standards.
"Uber is one of first companies to integrate software with an external consumer-facing physical service on a big, meaningful scale."
That's not even remotely true.
That's not even remotely true.
I'm genuinely interested in what you think is a counterexample. Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious or we're just considering different definitions.
What is the thing that allowed Uber to exist in the first place?
Cheesy? How about nonsensical and a sick laugh at their ignorant customers?
Cheesy? How about nonsensical and a sick laugh at their ignorant customers?
https://people.mozilla.org/~faaborg/files/20090521-firefoxIc...
(Page 26)