Deciding that a bunch of random letters and numbers don’t say “backup vendor” to their customers, Seagate Technology LLC’s i365 backup division switched its name back to its old “EVault” moniker last month.
The new (old) name – officially EVault, A Seagate Company, though they “informally” go by the more proletarian EVault – continues the love affair many IT vendors have for pasting an “I” or “E” before a brand name.
That’s a practice that started in the late 1990s when some marketing people knocking back Zima in the midst of a Seinfeld/Friends/Fraiser marathon decided that an extra vowel sound was needed for tech companies to be “with it” and has become less cool every second ever since.
So why go back? Let i365 EVault’s press release explain:
EVault is a strong name. The EVault name conveys many of the benefits important to you. EVault stands for electronic vault. Digital data goes in, and it stays put until you need it back. Secure. Reliable. Simple. Efficient. It’s what people ought to know about our backup and recovery services. Now it’s in our name.
EVault is a strong brand. The EVault name is well known and well liked by data protection professionals, and we want to leverage that more. By retiring the i365 name, we make it simpler for everyone to remember who are and what we do. And we’re free to focus on building a single, world-class brand.
EVault is who we are. Fact is, since 1997, EVault has always been who we are—the backup and recovery experts.
We’re EVault—still your backup and recovery services experts.
[Edit: emphasis theirs.]
Of course, dumping the i365 name also saves their marketing people a lot of work to distance themselves from a well-publicized data backup failure involving the Parish of Orleans District Court last year.
At the time, the court’s IT staff blamed an update from i365 Evault that wiped out some of the court’s real estate records, while a company executive blamed the court staff in an email. A subsequent investigation didn’t clear up who exactly was to blame for the lost records, but the court stuck with i365.