I've seen constumers get confused by this so yes Nintendo marketed wrong and it really did seem like the Wii U was just and upgrade. For consumers, the "U" could've just stood for "upgrade", the console looks very similar to the Wii, uses the same controllers just with the "add-on" gamepad, and still plays Wii games (granted backwards compatibility is an amazing feature).

From an Xbox 360 to Xbox One the name sounds completely different, a completely different look and controller so it's easier for customers to see that the XB1 is indeed a different console.

Xbox One isn't as stupid.

Wii
Wii U

Xbox 360
Xbox One

Not a exact same thing, expect that,
Wii U had very poor and bad marketing, Nintendo always showed Wii U gamepad in first place and not console itself (that looks very similar to Wii), thats why many assuming that tablet controller is just an add-on for Wii.

The Xbox One was marketed as a new machine, and marketed like crazy. The Wii U never got enough exposure for the masses to realize what it was. Kind of sad, considering that the Wii U was the most powerful home console on the market for a solid year. If it had launched with a "Kart" or "3D World", or even a "Bayonetta 2", to show off its prowess, a few heads might have turned.

Instead, by the time "MK8" came out, and people were impressed, consumers assumed that the PS4 would be making Wii U games look downright awful by the Fall. Which, of course, it didn't. "Bloodborne" is the only game I have on my PS4 that really wows me graphically.

To be honest, I still encounter friends who don't know that it's a new machine. To look at it on an entertainment cabinet, it looks eerily close to a black Wii.

Both consoles have stupid names, both get made fun of for it and neither name has a significant impact on sales.

Spoiler alert:

there is no bias

I am pretty sure that Wii U with better name and proper marketing, would sell much better, and now could be at around 15m instead 10m.

The Wii U name is still hurting Nintendo
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/5/5970787/wii-u-nintendo-bad-name

"Wii U is not selling as well as it deserves to. It has a lot to offer with great games you can't get anywhere else," Adelman said, answering a question about whether Nintendo was to blame for the "mess" it's in. "The value of the GamePad hasn't been justified. But the name Wii U is abysmal. I think that cut sales in half right there."

The confusion began immediately. People assumed it was a peripheral for the existing Wii hardware. Jimmy Fallon didn't seem to understand the hardware on his show. "This is the new system. You add it to your Wii or you don't even need to use the Wii. Do you need to use the Wii? You can just use it on your own, but you can also use it with the Wii," Fallon said. He was later corrected.

CNN ran a story saying the Wii U was "a solid accessory that will bring a fresh element to Nintendo gaming." The story was soon updated, but the comments discussing the issue live on.

"With the Wii U, it had two major problems," Matt Scott, founder and CEO of family games-focused publisher Little Orbit, told Polygon at E3 this year. "One is that they didn't lock the demographic down, they had just a bunch of everything. And two, I believe that they mismarketed it. By calling it the Wii U, everybody thought it was an accessory for the Wii, they thought it was a tablet for the Wii.

One analyst even shared stories of retailers telling her to just buy the Wii, since it was cheaper and there was no difference in the hardware.
"I think one of the things that was a real indicator of that was just, anecdotally, if you went into a retailer and you talked to somebody in the games department, they didn't even understand what it was," she said. "I did the secret shopper kind of thing, and they would say, 'Well, there's no difference between the Wii and Wii U.'"

The name isn't going anywhere in 2014, but sales are still sluggish, the company is still reporting losses and the industry is still talking about how badly the Wii U name hurt the system upon release, and continues to hurt it. The name sounded silly, sure, but even worse was the fact it didn't differentiate itself from a system that was already a huge hit but was rapidly losing favor with consumers and retailers.

You can't trust that a clerk at a local Target will know or understand what each system can and can't do, and the name made it seem like it was little more than an upgrade to an existing system.

It's a criticism that's repeated to this day. Even if most individuals aren't as bold as Adelman's claim that the name halved system sales, nearly everyone agrees that the name and accompanying confusion hurt the system to some degree.

The biggest problem I see with the 100 million total hardware sales is that it still doesn't disprove that Nintendo are losing relevance, especially considering how much the market has grown since the NES days, this basically denotes stagnation in their market development at best and downright contraction (relatively speaking) at worst. In addition; we still have to look at the numbers and conclude that both handhelds and home consoles is taking a hit, they are both trending downwards, while in the above list, as home console sales shrunk, handheld sales kept growing between generations.

I saw a thread on the hot topics page titled something like "Why is the Vita outselling the Wii U for 2015 so far?" and it made me think; why is that? Vita barely gets support, has been declared more or less dead globally and doesn't have an ounce of marketing power behind it. The Wii U has been supported decently by Nintendo, has had some bigger marketing pushes and managed two half-decent holidays in its time.

The fact that the West is becoming a more and more important and prominent market for home consoles is another huge problem for Nintendo. This is their biggest weakness, and I believe I've said as much before; they are a very, very Japanese company at heart and as far as management style goes, the same is true for many of their franchises and appeal, they have been hopelessly bogged down by tradition and a very unpersonal demeanor on a corporate level (business face syndrome; their treatment of Indies and the struggles of Dan Adelman with Nintendo's policies are huge signs of this phenomenon). The whole industry has taken a turn towards more western-centric design philosophies, both in hardware and software and Nintendo have quite simply lagged behind (literally at some points; their lack of online focus is perhaps the main culprit here) and have kept on pushing their agenda and desire for creating your own market and demand rather than reading and responding;  this is a tactic that works very poorly if you don't understand the markets you're going for or the finer mechanics of the trends that drive the consumer sentiment towards any given line of products or entertainment concepts (or, to the same effect; not allowing those who do understand to help in making major decisions and offering valuable input).
Apple has been highly successful with this strategy but they are a very American company at heart; huge focus on advertisement and lots of bravado and hyperbole paired with focus on the market driving trends and expanding functionality, their strongest market is North America by far and their main focus since their restructuring in the 90's and early 2000's has been creating "it" items for the mainstream markets.
Refusing to accept and/or adopt mainstream traits out of spite is rarely a good idea, especially when your company is heading in a downwards spiral and losing great amounts of traction among the prime audiences.

I think even Nintendo are realizing that they're shrinking and becoming less relevant as a provider of entertainment, this is likely why they recently made the decision to start developing for mobile as well; they need to be more visible on the market as a whole and they need the continued financial support from the mass market segments of the market, this is found primarily on mobile devices right now and for some time.
It is a good move in my opinion, and will likely save them a huge headache in the end, let's just hope they apply this recent eductaion to their 9th gen planning and execution, they have shown an unwillingness to learn and adapt in the past (and present).

Bottom line for me; the traditional Nintendo is losing relevance, which is why they are currently seeking to rebuild themselves and bolster their strength by aquiring more breadth and impact across more of a potential audience and with a wider array of services as well. They finally understood what happened to the majority of the Wii audience and where the 150 million missing handheld gamers from the 7th gen have gone, and that's probably a good thing for them in the long run.
It is not only my claim that they are losing relevance and appeal; their own recent actions seem to be a countermeasure against just that.

People should stop with this ridiculous explanation. The reasons behind Wii U's failure are related to hardware, pricing, 3rd party support and a bunch of bad decisions.

Thanks for replying finally

There is one thing in my last post u seem to have overlooked, I pointed out that outside of America, Nintendo is on track to hit their pre-Wii/DS baseline, it's literally only America that is showing a decline. That decline is looking to be about 40% (30 million vs 50 million), that correlates with the 40% extra it currently costs to get both devices compared to pre-Wii/DS generations adjusted for inflation ($500 vs $300). Like I said, it may be a coincidence but I think it could be a large reason why their hardware isn't selling up to snuff in America where children is a huge market for Nintendo.

U point out that the 100 million baseline shows that Nintendo hasn't grown and is stagnant, well that is true for the Playstation+Xbox market as well, it's looking to be the 3rd consecutive generation of stagnant hardware sales for them.

PS2+Xbox=about 180 million

PS3+360=about 170 million, will likely end around 180 million

PS4+XB1=too early to say but most estimates are around 120-130 million for PS4 & 50-60 million for XB1 so right around 180 million once again.

As for Mobile, Nintendo wants to use it as a way to help market their traditional hardware/software and be able to generate a healthy profit at the same time along with unifying their handheld/consoles as a way to increase software output. In my opinion, the 3 things Nintendo needs in order to regain that 100 million hardware/500 million software baseline are improved marketing, more affordable hardware, higher software output. With these things fixed, I think it's very possible that their next console can sell 20-30 million and the handheld 70-80 million.

From 1991-2006, Nintendo averaged about $1 billion annually with these type of hardware/software sales, I think they can return to those types of profits with these numbers and perhaps even go back to Wii/DS level profits which was about $15 billion over the course of 5 years. I don't think it's realistic to expect Nintendo to return to Wii/DS level sales which was 250+ million hardware and close to 2 billion software but with Nintendo branching out into new markets, I believe they can potentially hit those level profits despite lower hardware/software sales.

NX family of devices

Amiibo figuries/cards

Quality of Life products

Mobile games/apps

IP licensing (films/series)

Their traditional gaming market could return to their pre-Wii/DS baseline of 100 million hardware/500 million software/$1 billion annual profit and their other newer markets can potentially make return them to Wii/DS level profits.

Marketing. Everyone knows that Xbox One was the next iteration. Nintendo was by comparison not clear at all with WiiU.