In defense of “tangle”
I first learned about this name change on CatchThis, a blog produced by the excellent naming firm Catchword. According to the post, a family-friendly video sharing site called GodTube has renamed itself tangle. Laurel Sutton, a founder and owner at Catchword, outlines her case against the name by making two points:
- A contradiction between a) a line in an article explaining the name change, which states that tangle supports “no specific theology” and b) quotes from the CEO that suggest the site is really for Christians.
- The fact that “tangle” is “usually something you want to get out of, not in to. And then there’s the meaning of ‘mess with’ or ‘provoke’ – also negative, and kind of threatening too (do you want to tangle with god?)”
I agree with Laurel’s first point, and in fact will add to it. Maybe it’s partly due to growing pains as they make these changes, but tangle is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the site’s FAQ, the question is specifically asked: “Do I have to be a Christian to use tangle?” I find the first sentence of the response confusing.
“No, tangle embraces all users who are interested in adhering to our Terms of Use, playing nice, Christianity and the meaning of faith and unconditional love.”
I don’t think I’m being too tricky by pointing out that the sentence could be rephrased in part as “No, tangle embraces all users who are interested in adhering to Christianity.” I’m no theologian, but I think most Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists (sorry if I left you out) would agree that they do not “adhere to Christianity,” whatever that means, exactly. In reality, it’s disingenuous for tangle to pretend to be anything but a Christian site when the mouse-copy at the bottom of each page (for SEO purposes?) contains the sentence “Our users upload and share a wide variety of Christian videos, Christian music videos and music clips, for FREE, including Christian rock, Christian rap, Christian hip hop and numerous up-and-coming Christian bands.”
To say you’re open to people of all faiths (or no faith) is one thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a Christian site.
I have a real problem with Laurel’s second point, however. Her case against the name seems to be entirely built on this idea that tangles are negative things. I left a comment on her post explaining why I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss a name for this reason alone:
Laurel,
I agree that there may be a contradiction in Tangle’s messaging about Christianity versus being “open to all faiths.” Note that Illian says it’s important that “advertisers…can feel comfortable” with the site. Clearly it’s in their best interest to take money from anyone who wants to advertise with them, even if they want the site to continue appealing to Christians. Cynical, I know, but this may be one reason for the doublespeak.
I’m surprised, however, to hear your opposition to the name “Tangle” based on negative connotations and dislike by bloggers. If this is how we judge name candidates, Virgin and Yahoo never would’ve made it. And I’m sure you (or Catchword, at least) has experienced the joy of standing by a good name that you know will work even as it’s being torn down by the press and the public.
At the very least, “Tangle” deals with GodTube’s immediate problem of sounding like YouTube, and succeeds in allowing the site to stand for more than just Christian-related videos. Now we’ll just have to see whether they can make it stand for anything at all…
Laurel countered (visit CatchThis for her full response), making the valid point that unlike tangle, Yahoo and Virgin were founded as brands that are “provocative, cheerfully disrespectful, and not afraid to break the rules.” Her stance is that the name just doesn’t match the core idea of the brand.
I wrote my comment even though I wasn’t a big fan of the name at the time. I didn’t like Laurel’s reasons for doubting the name, at least as she’d outlined them in her post. But I also didn’t understand what ‘tangle’ had to do with sharing videos. In preparing to write this post, however, I noticed that the name change is part of a larger strategy to make the site about more than just video sharing—to push it into full-blown social networking, with a video sharing component.
In that context, I think the name makes a lot of sense. For me, it evokes a sense of active networking, engaging connections, and sure, getting caught up in something. I’m not sure if that’s the intent behind the name, but it doesn’t really matter. I don’t really think about the fact that “Target” probably came from the idea that it’s the place to aim at for all your shopping needs, but the name works for me, despite it’s potential negative connotations (and it has several). For the same reason, I actually like the name “tangle.” But unfortunately for the site’s hosts, I’m not a likely visitor—I just can’t tell whether my non-Christian ways are welcome.
comment
Please Leave a Reply
TrackBack URL :
And at least the name is a real word! I’m with you – I like it.
Here’s a name I hate: Abilify. Who the heck pooped that one out?!?
What do you think of this one?
98pt6 – it’s a brand expression firm: http://www.98pt6.com
Too clever by half for me, but you can just picture the branding and naming wonks high-fiving when they came up with it…