HOME / moneybox: Daily commentary about business and finance.

Go.com, Disney's Dumbest Brand

A year ago or so, I briefly got into the habit of asking people if they'd heard of the "Go Network," and if so, what they thought of it. Many had heard of it. After all, Go's name seemed to be everywhere for a while--soap operas, movies, news shows, sports shows, it was all "Part of the Go Network!" I was working in Times Square at the time, and from the 11th-floor cafeteria of my building you could see a good-sized billboard featuring nothing but the Go logo.

Almost no one I asked, however, knew what the Go Network actually was, so I wasn't particularly surprised to hear earlier this year that the Walt Disney Co. had decided to do away with the Go Network altogether. Basically, Go was Disney's grand Internet play: The company had rolled up the old Infoseek search engine site and tried to turn it into a portal that would somehow "leverage" all the great brands that Disney owns: Not just the characters and films from the core Disney stable, but also ESPN, ABC News, ABC's sitcoms and soaps, etc. But while each of those brands stands for something very specific on its own, the Go Network, by mushing them altogether, stood for nothing of any meaning to consumers. That's why Disney got rid of it.

Well, Disney sort of got rid of it. The spin-off stock that tracks Disney's Internet properties is now called Disney Internet Group, and the company has stopped chirping about the "Go Network" at every opportunity. But Go.com itself has recently been relaunched. Somewhat confusingly, www.go.com takes you to the old site, but if you click a banner ad there, you can visit a "beta" version of the new one.

Certainly the new Go.com looks better, but the same old question lingers: What, exactly, is it? The theory is that Go.com is a "Web guide," focused on entertainment and leisure. In practice, it's still something of a hodgepodge. There's a mess of links, and many are related to entertainment (broadly defined) but certainly not all of them. The centerpiece still seems to be the search engine, and the overall look and feel is of a Yahoo!-style portal. There's a link for autos, for stocks, for weather; you can get e-mail, a home page, maps, or a Web calendar; "find your ancestors," suggests one link; and, needless to say, there is also chat. Along the bottom is a list of "Go.com partners": ABC.com, ABCNews.com, Disney.com, ESPN.com, Family.com, Movies.com, Mr. Showbiz, and Wall of Sound.

What's the point? I can see why each of those "partner" sites would attract an audience, but what is the advantage to the "partnership" itself? The search engine is rigged to make the most of the partners' content, so that if you type in "Britney Spears," you get some basic info directly from Wall of Sound (a music site) as well as a list of links. A "Sprewell" search similarly gets you a little ESPN content plus links. I guess this is sort of useful, but my suspicion is that most Web searchers are more interested in comprehensiveness.

Certainly it makes sense for Disney's various sites to, say, share ad sales resources. It even makes sense for their aggregate business to be tracked by one stock. But Go.com as a proposition for consumers remains roughly equivalent to a Procter & Gamble retail store: Sure, you could go to such a place (if it existed) to buy Tide, but why would you? Chances are your loyalty is to the Tide brand, and if detergent is what you need, then you couldn't care less what else Procter & Gamble might have to offer. It's similarly hard to imagine that Joe the General Hospital fan and Jane the SportsCenter fan have any particular interest in the common corporate parentage of their favorite shows.

Few companies have been as shrewd at Disney at creating and managing brands. But lumping them together under the meaningless Go.com banner doesn't do anything to enhance the company's good brands--it just buries them beneath a dumb one.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Rob Walker writes the Ad Report Card for Slate.
COMMENTS

Reader Comments from The Fray:


How odd that you didn't see the parallels to Snap.com and NBCi. What's that all about? Doesn't seem that ABC Disney is attempting anything different. Not that your criticism doesn't hold true. You were just a little narrow in your scope.

--Bonnie McNamara

(To reply, click here.)

[Note from the Fray Editor: Mr Walker, a reasonable man, would like to direct your attention to an earlier story on Snap.com.]


People hate Go because unlike Yahoo and other portals you can buy your ranking. If a porn site wanted to pay a million bucks to be first after a Brittany Spears search, that's what would come up, not a soundtrack. Lacking journalistic integrity and competence, people have come to expect portals to be the sole (however flimsy and amateurish themselves) gatekeeper of non-advertising based guidance toward websites, with rankings based on popularity (number of hits), opinion of "yahooligans," or algorithms. I agree that there is no benefit of using Go.com, stated or otherwise. Disney has always been and remains a great amusement park company, but when I think of the company I want to think of funny characters and a great time, not greedy white men.

--Yenta1

(To reply, click here.)


Despite the obvious shortcomings of the Go brand, the properties within the company are some of the strongest out there. Whether the Go portal ties them all together perfectly is kind of meaningless.

I am bullish on Disney Interactive Group. They have some of the strongest web properties out there right now and are learning how to make them the best. Meanwhile, many of the little guys are dying off, giving more space to Disney and the bigger boys who have known brands. Which is what most people really want.

--John Lopsant

(To reply, click here.)

(9/22)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The beauty parlor.16/091209_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Wall Street.44/091209_TC.jpg
Rogue rules.87/091209_TD.jpg