Here’s what I’m wondering, though. On ‘The brand doesn’t abandon its roots, but grows from them’–does this apply to Apple?? They’re probably a good back-from-the-dead example, but it seems like part of their business plan (and ethos) is to cut off their previous models as soon as the next is released. Good luck getting support or buying the old product. This always struck me as a totalitarian Steve Jobs thing–rejecting his last view of perfection for his new one. But they do this all the time. Maybe there’s a reason why this doesn’t apply to them? Or maybe they’re good at these other factors, and so this they rose again despite the swimming upstream here.

ps – love the link to the first MP3 player, which I was convinced was the Diamond Rio. Blast!

Beyond the scope of this post, a question came up in our research: Can someone pull value from the recently-deceased? Rather than building a product or service on a clean slate, would it be possible for clever strategic positioning to capitalize on brands that are currently worm food? One firm is attempting to reawaken some dormant brand names.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18rebranding-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp

Very interesting.