Microsoftespnguyen Thanks for the explanation. I think the frustrating thing for us comms and adoption folk is that all of the product names are really hard to explain to end users and they absolutely do care about this. We took the decision to talk about Viva in terms of 'bringing everything into Teams' as Teams is fairly well understood, whereas if we mention Yammer they really don't understand why both apps exist and often aren't remotely open to the explanations around inner/outer loops and pace of conversations and not through lack of trying. 'Communities' made sense, as that was a good way of describing what Yammer enabled rather than what it was called.
Leaders often challenge us 'if you want to add a comms channel, take another one away' - we now potentially have to explain that no, it's not something new, it's still Yammer, and then they get frustrated and disengaged and we end up having to apologise for MSFT's branding decisions.
To me, it would make sense to chuck everything under the Viva brand, so we had Viva Teams, Viva Engage, Viva Connections etc and got rid of all the other names as that would make it easier to communicate. If Engage is Yammer, then get rid of Yammer, but having the terms Viva Engage, Communities and Yammer hanging about is a recipe for more confusion, and all the while we're talking about what things are called we've got less airtime to talk about what they do, and that's a real shame because underneath it all you're delivering great stuff.
