Thanks, Ruggy!
All - I’ll also say, I just took another look at the new superhuman home page. Found it interesting that Go, Mail, Calendar, Docs, and Databases are listed as the options.
This rebrand is destined to fail. Take a simple, easy to use and remember name like Coda and turn it into a long, multi-syllable name that everyone has to shorten, will weaken your brand. I’ve been through a branding similar to this, and customers had such a hard time getting the name correct, that we changed back to the short and simple name. And, as others have said, I’m a little embarrassed to share the new name – it’s pretentious, and it sounds more like a video game than a serious business product.
My theory is that an investor for the Superhuman, when it was a startup, was so set on the name and no one could say no or they would pull the funding.
“It’s like this app makes you … SUPERHUMAN! GET IT?!” The investor yelled while swinging a briefcase full of cash in a room full of uncomfortable programmers nodding along.
It’s the only logical explanation for such a terrible name.
Makes sense, if you have some marketing background. Most people do not, so it would have been nice to run a campaign announcing the rebranding, also addressing the major functionality changes. Off the cuff, I assume that Superhuman Mail had some brand recognition, if not as much as Grammarly. Not sure where Coda fell on that spectrum?
For a new umbrella brand, Grammarly is a bad idea, as the brand and the name suggest a very limited application to grammar checking. So one was left with Coda, Superhuman or a new umbrella name. And the marketing department decided on Superhuman.
I hear you - the marketing guys are very clever, but the Disney marketing guys that launched Disney Paris was at least as good, but they made an utter mess of it - because they thought that the ret of the world are just more America. Can you imagine opening restaurants without wine, in FRANCE!! The international members has for years fought an uphill battle to internationalize Coda.
What makes the whole branding discussion that much more difficult is that Coda (and Notion, Fibery etc) introduced a whole new product category, a category that is still evolving, and has made a big evolutionary jump with Superhuman docs. Which unfortunately still stays with the “doc” moniker. It was an opportunity to introduce a completely new term, like Uber or AirBnB.
I assume that the marketing dept ran focus groups for this. Did they include makers and users? Did they include overseas customers - European, Asian, African?
But that is water under the bridge.
I, and I assume others as well, are not wedded to the name Coda. In fact, while the anagram was cute, I found it unfortunate because still today a Google search will return several other uses of the term. The problem is not with the change, but the new name and imagery. The name is bulky, and has unfortunate connotations in one of America’s largest trading blocs.
Monday.com, Asana, Clickup have continuous advertising campaigns. Coda had an absolutely brilliant one, exactly highlighting the idea that Coda docs are not your grandfather’s docs. (Boomer reference!). But I cannot even remember how long ago it was, and since then radio silence.
Clickup’s Reddit has ten times the weekly posts that Coda has. They, and Notion, have a professional looking banner. The Coda Reddit has a slap dash banner, with letters cut-off. I get it Reddit and other social media platforms are supposed to be social, and not corporate. But they still reflect your brand, and should be paid attention to.
Coca-Cola monitors the internet 24/7 via three offices, one in Asia, one in Europe and one in America and will react to any negative postings. The same with World Rugby - They have a similar operation during world cup tournaments. And with three world cup tournaments nowadays, I assume they are also getting close to 24/7 monitoring. (Big brother is alive and prowling the interwebs,)
I regularly get comments on Reddit along the lines of “I’ve never heard of Coda before”, or “They seem to be dying because their Youtube channel is dead, they have no social media presence, and nobody else is creating content”. (At least now the Youtube channel is back in action.)
I perceive Superhuman to be top heavy in engineering types with not enough input from the softer skills like marketing. My initial training was as an auditor (CPA in America) at Deloittes. At auditing firms, by law only CA(SA) (board certified auditors) could become partners in those days. And I can distinctly remember when the managing partner explained to us his epiphany - It makes zero sense to have an accountant fulfilling the HR function for your company.
Aluta Continua! 
Hey @Cindy_Stoutenborough! Welcome back! I wish it were for better reasons, but it’s nice to see you posting again after a hiatus.
Like I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, I can’t promise any immediate changes on the Superhuman rebrand, or that one will ever be considered at all. But I do know the folks making these calls pay attention when there’s a real groundswell around something, whether that’s how a feature works, a request that keeps coming up, or a design choice that could use a second look. So feedback like yours doesn’t just disappear into the void, even when it doesn’t lead to an instant reversal.
@Piet_Strydom Great points as always. Let me dig into a few of these.
About the name: I’m flattered you’d mention Coda alongside Uber and Airbnb. Shishir would appreciate that, though I don’t think any of us see ourselves at that level yet! I understand your point about creating a new category name, and Coda (along with Notion, Fibery, and others) did help shape that space. I also see why using “docs” as the main term feels limiting, since the product has grown beyond what people usually think of as a doc. To be honest, the decision was already underway when I joined, so I don’t know all the details. My guess is that it was a straightforward choice: Superhuman Mail was already a name and part of the family post-acquisition, and “Superhuman” describes the whole suite working together in a way “Coda” couldn’t. I doubt there was a big branding campaign or expensive focus group—more likely, the name was just already available and made sense.
About internationalization: that’s a good comparison, and it’s a reminder that choices made for one region might not work the same way elsewhere. We do have team members in Europe, including Ukraine and Germany, so those perspectives are part of our process, even if I can’t say exactly how naming decisions were made.
Regarding marketing and social presence: your points about the Reddit banner and YouTube activity are fair and worth noting. I don’t know the details about internal resources or why those gaps happened, but I think most of the effort has gone into reaching this stage, including the rebrand. I’m not on that team, but I believe they’re now focusing on bringing those content channels back, so you should see more activity soon. 
I know a forum post doesn’t change things overnight. But when someone shares real comparisons and reasons instead of just saying ‘I don’t like it,’ it goes a lot further toward building a real counterargument for decision-making. Much appreciated!
Much has been said. The bottom line is this: using “Docs” as a substitute for a proper product name ranges from inadequate to absurd. There is really no obvious, logical explanation for choosing “Docs.” None of the justifications offer an argument of any real substance—nothing that even comes close to the strong arguments that would have supported a distinct product name. Consequently, there is no need to try to understand such a decision; one simply has to accept it and move on. We just shouldn’t make a habit of following the nonsensical decisions of people who lack understanding. In the long run, that usually leads to failure. Now, let’s look at the real-world consequences. I am based in Europe, and the clients I manage—as well as the new ones I’ve acquired—are sometimes failing at the very first hurdle: logging in. I was genuinely shocked when I tried to find the Superhuman login page on my Android tablet. It was incredibly hard to locate; the webpage—featuring a person looking to the right—offers absolutely no sense of where you’ve actually landed. This botched execution is damaging my reputation. That is the real-world impact. I can’t even get my clients onto Coda—that wonderful product—anymore.
Hey @Arbor_Advice
I appreciate you jumping into the convo.
Thank you for flagging the login issue, since that’s something I can share with the team. Is it more than just one client coming back to you with a similar complaint? If so, that’s a real UX pattern the team should know about. I’ll make sure they hear this.
One thing I’ll push back on a little, though: that last line about not being able to get clients onto “Coda, that wonderful product” anymore. I get why the login confusion might make it feel that way, but it’s still Coda under the hood. Same product, same stuff you’ve always liked about it. The name’s different, and maybe the login page took some getting used to, but what your clients use once they’re in hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s still here, and the best version it’s ever been.
You live in a vacuum. As a 30-year brand developer, I can tell you the feelings expressed here are valid. Not a good rebrand strategy. Sometimes decisions that are meant to move a company forward have the opposite affect, despite having a semblance of logic. Some things can’t be sugarcoated; it really does feel like amateur hour in many ways.
Hi @Ruggy-Joesten
The new “coda” is even better than the previous version. And I’m really happy about that, thanks to the team.
The login problem was only temporary and was resolved within 24 hours. It was probably related to the Firefox browser or a display issue on older browser versions. Since this happened on my client’s site, I can’t say exactly what the cause was. The client took it in stride, and everything is working now. The login button is now in the top right corner, where you’d expect it to be.
However, there are two things I’d like to address. When the signup/signin page asks for your email address, it says “your work or school email” above the input field. This initially leaves everyone confused who simply has an email address that isn’t related to work or school.
These questions can easily be avoided by simply using “your email address” as a prompt. If certain email addresses are not allowed to be used at all, for whatever reason, this can be communicated in a separate dialog, but this should be limited to individual cases (I’m assuming here that most email addresses should work).
Secondly, later in the signup process, users are forced to specify a team. This cannot be skipped. So there are probably already hundreds of “my team” or “no team” entries. As an Enterprise member, you need an organization, team, and domain. However, if a maker invites editors to a docs app (it should really be called docs Doc), the invited editor might find the team question confusing.
Perhaps you could automatically populate this with “my team,” and people who want to change it can simply overwrite it. Or you could add a small note that it’s irrelevant for solo editors and that they should enter something unimportant (not the best solution).
I’m one of those people who adapt to new conditions. The advantages of this further development in docs clearly outweigh the disadvantages, and the development team needs to make decisions to move forward.
The login problem – that was just on a Friday; the new features and what’s still to come will carry us into the future.
Hello @fuzenco !
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
A brief explanation first. Some time ago, I wrote a longer text praising Coda/Superhuman with all its functionality and positive attributes. My enthusiasm was palpable in the text. Then I asked Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek what a good product name would be. It needed to work internationally and support marketing by conveying what the product is all about.
All three AIs identified two key things: First, users can better organize themselves and network as a team using their own apps (Docs), thereby increasing productivity. Second, the deep integration of an AI that can access data in spreadsheets and acts as a true assistant to support the user.
One of the suggestions was:
Syn-Agent
You and your agent, insync
two forces, one result
I’m not concerned with whether this is good or bad, so please, no discussion about that.
Here’s what I’m getting at: A person lands on the homepage of superhuman.com, scans the screen, searching for information about the topic, the essence of the website, and its potential uses. The product name, Superhuman, is displayed. There’s absolutely… no information to be gleaned from it—zero. With “Syn-Agent,” one might at least surmise that it could be about AI agents and synergies or harmony between humans and AI.
Then comes: “superpowers everywhere you work.” Try as they might, the person can’t glean any information from this. “Superpower” is a term primarily associated with comics, and “everywhere” is just an arbitrary phrase. Nearly three seconds have passed, and the person is still searching.
Now, where their gaze goes is crucial. Right at the top of the screen, it says, “Looking for Superhuman Mail?” This question is clearly aimed at someone who already uses email and has an email address. Why would they click here? To the thoughts of a visitor to this homepage, no information has yet been added that would help them understand the product. If you glance down at the bottom of the screen, you’ll find “Get Superhuman.” Why would anyone want to get something they don’t understand?
In smaller print, you’ll then find “Mail, Docs, and AI that works in every app and tab.” Note the order and how these terms are presented. “Mail” comes first—no one cares because everyone has it. Followed by “Docs”—no one cares because everyone knows Word .docs and Google Docs. Everyone has been writing in Docs for years. And now comes the mention of an AI, with an added detail: it can work in any “software” (app) and on any “tab” (referring to Go in a browser tab). This is far too abstract, perhaps even frightening, for someone unfamiliar with the product “Go.” Nobody wants an AI that works in some way within other software they use.
Now I’d like to return to the slogan from earlier: “Two forces, one result.” The narrative, the product explanation, can directly connect to this by describing and illustrating the superior outcome. For example, “Build your docs, sheets, and apps – empower your team.” Or “Handover your workflows to your assistant.” Or “Clean up your inbox in minutes.”
Okay, these are just examples. I’m not a marketing expert, and as a native German speaker, I have to phrase things carefully here. But I’m a person with a clear vision, and I see that this isn’t good enough. Sorry for the long story.
Hey @Arbor_Advice!
Thought I replied to this yesterday, but apparently not 
I love these suggestions, and I’ll bring them to the team, as I think they make a ton of sense. There has been a ton of focus on lowering the floor when getting started, and I can see how something like what you highlighted might get in the way of that. Appreciate you!
A short, quick analogy about Europe’s objections that was just brought up to me: it’s reminiscent of when Chevy attempted to market a new compact car - the Nova - in Mexico. Nova in Spanish sounds the same as No Va - no go.
The car didn’t sell because it had a name that meant, “this car doesn’t work.”
Personally, I’m finding it incredibly difficult to walk clients through the login changes with Superhuman Docs having Superhuman ID having different rules. There’s not enough differentiation from the brand and the products to make this discussion easy.
Shoutout to somebody at Coda (yes, I still call it ‘Coda’) — last week the generic icon on my computer dashboard changed from boring gray to lavender. Thank you! I can SEE it now. Just a little color and it no longer looks like the icon for a utility app. Thank you again!
Like many of you, the new brand does not convince me, and I felt the need to clarify my own thoughts. In late 2025, I wrote about how Coda took a wrong turn by chasing the ghost of Notion. This rebranding makes me realize those foundational issues are still present, and it feels like the leadership team hasn’t been swayed by our architectural concerns.
Last week, I published a follow-up blog titled “The Product Formerly Known as Coda.” I broke down the three main reasons this rebrand misses the mark (including that uncomfortable historical baggage) and pitched six alternative names that actually respect the product’s architecture.
Cheers, Christiaan
A very interesting reading as usual, Christiaan 
@Cari Yay! It finally launched! Appreciate you flagging — we were able to get the team on this, thanks to your feedback 