Total Recall

by Randall Hull of The Br@nd Ranch®

AKA: "Oh What a feeling".

Unless you have been on a trek to one of the poles or living in a cabin deep in the woods somewhere, you have likely heard about the huge problem facing Toyota Motor Corporation and its U.S. organization Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Here's a quick recap just in case:

Toyota Motor Corporation began a recall in late 2009, which – as of March – totaled 8.5 million cars globally due to braking problems and accelerator pedal defects which were initially blamed on other things such as "floor mat entrapment". The initial recall included Toyota's Corolla, Matrix, Camry, Highlander SUV, RAV4, as well as Tundra and Sequoia trucks. After Toyota admitted the 2010 Prius had a design defect in its anti-lock brake system, it too joined the list, and the U.S government began investigating the automaker.

And then there's the Black Box. As in commercial airlines, automobiles have "black boxes" known as Event Data Recorders, or EDRs, which keep a data record of various things the automobile was doing a few seconds prior to and after a crash. The EDRs in Toyotas use a proprietary software which, according to an Associated Press investigation, until recently could be read by only one laptop in the U.S. In response to growing pressure Toyota has delivered three laptops to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the software capable of reading their EDR data. The AP investigation also found that Toyota was not offering full disclosure about what their device did and did not record.

Discussing the legal implications and what was and was not disclosed is beyond the scope of this article and my expertise. I want to focus on how this could throttle the Toyota brand and how they can put the brakes on this situation before it spins out of control. After reading all the news releases and legal saber rattling, "Oh What a feeling" is taking on a whole new meaning for me.

Toyota has been producing vehicles since 1936, and up to now, safety and reliability has been the foundation of their brand. Yet, in the middle of all this Toyota officials admitted the company's rapid growth may have gotten in the way of maintaining the highest standards of quality control. Its the familiar company profits before customer safety scenario -- hardly confidence building.

Added to this poor communications mix, when Toyota should have reassured the world they had the recall situation in hand, they made a fundamental faux pas, overlooking the importance of not only what you say but also how you deliver the message. In January, a Toyota executive addressed television cameras wearing – gasp! – a surgical mask. Perhaps this is common in Japan during cold season, but the message was broadcast worldwide, where a cultural nuance such as this could easily be misconstrued. First, it projected a "we are in toxic triage" image, and secondly, CEO Akio Toyoda should have delivered the message – sans mask. The U.S. marketplace, particularly, does not take kindly to aloof leadership in a crisis, and quite simply, this was a crisis of confidence, where brands live or die.

This debacle holds so many lessons for brand managers and executives, alike. Primary amongst them what not to do when your product demonstrates a performance problem that puts your customers at risk. When building public trust in your product and your company, transparency followed by action is fundamental. The risk in failing to staunch eroding customer confidence is forever tarnishing your brand.

The Toyota recall, of course, is not the first time well known brands have faced a crisis.

In 1994, a professor at Lynchburg College reported a bug in the Intel Pentium floating point unit. He sent a memo to Intel reporting what became know as the Pentium FDIV bug. Intel, caught by surprise, had no crises strategy in place and chose to deny the problem. When public pressure became too great, Intel announced a recall and Andy Grove, Intel CEO at the time, offered one of the greatest mea culpas in corporate history. Although jokes prevailed for some time, the public forgave and moved on.

Johnson & Johnson had a huge headache in 1982 when cyanide-laced Tylenol in the Chicago area resulted in 7 fatalities. Johnson & Johnson took only 6 days to respond and recalled 30 million packages. At the time the incident was thought to be fatal to the company, but the public saw the action as a prime example of corporate responsibility. The final result was tamper-proof packaging on medications and Johnson & Johnson's brand intact.

Perrier recalled 160 million bottles of mineral water in 1990 when traces of benzene were discovered. Although the amounts were not considered enough to present a risk, Perrier acted to protect its reputation and was hailed as responsible public citizens.

Companies, who have dealt with critical challenges promptly and well, demonstrate how a brand can be guided through crises and emerge untarnished, if not stronger for it. A genuinely sincere apology timed appropriately will go far in winning back customer loyalty and restoring trust. Many companies have learned their customers listen most closely when they honestly admit failure.

Toyota is one of the world’s strongest brands according the Interbrand's rankings. CEO Akio Toyoda must utilize his best public communication skills and convince the public that he has taken control of this crisis. Then act swiftly and effectively. Should Toyota successfully address the many product issues, they will recover with nothing more than a bloody nose. But should they fail to resolve the problems fully, as recent reports indicate, the damage incurred may be fatal and the Toyota brand could be so severely tarnished, it will take years and millions of dollars to restore. "Oh what a feeling" that would be.

Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Happy Birthday Duey!

File:Candleburning.jpg

DuetsBlog celebrated its first birthday today, so that means Duey the squirrel is one year old. He has made a lot of friends over the past year (as have we), and he has come a long way (as have we) despite his exhaustion hording nuts (we haven't done any of that) for the long cold winter we had (hopefully this remains past tense).  

This is some of what Duey has observed since our inaugural post entitled Dr. No and the Parade of Horribles:

  1. Some 350 posts (part of the reason for his exhaustion);
  2. Some 530 comments (part of the reason for your exhaustion);
  3. Some 840 followers on Twitter;
  4. Some 250,000 visits; and
  5. Us, having a lot of fun . . . .

Here is a snapshot of where we were back in July 2009, and here is one from December 2009.

Thanks to our wonderful and growing group of talented Guest Bloggers, and thanks to you for your comments and interest in the conversation we have started here on DuetsBlog.

May all collaborations between trademark types and marketing types be early, often, personable, smart, enjoyable, graceful, and mutually beneficial.

Goodbye, Process of the Past; Hello, Trust and Engagement

by Jodi Petrich, Senior Director at Fast Horse

More brands are turning to social media to engage consumers. Social media are a great tool for launching new products or services, sharing promotional offers, hosting contests or simply connecting with loyal fans.

One big challenge is that the approval process in many companies doesn’t lend itself well to social media. For example, consider the process involved in the development of a print or TV ad. A strategy is created and a creative brief is written; creative teams develop concepts; concepts and copy are routed to clients and legal; clients and legal provide input; and the concepts are revised and approved.

It’s a process that (perhaps) works when creating an ad, but it lessens the opportunity for impact when applied to social media. The intent of social media is to be interactive, to share news in a timely fashion, to be authentic and relevant, and to allow for instantaneous or even spontaneous connectivity. Processes of the past simply aren’t nimble enough to allow companies to take full advantage of all that social media offers.

But what is the right process for new media? Take this tale of two brands on Facebook.

  • Brand A is mired in heavy process. Anyone who wishes to post content on the page must fill out and submit a request form a minimum of five days in advance of when the post will run. There are only five posts allowed per day, and only one per region, which can post on select days. The brand has a great following, but users are the recipients of very calculated messages.
  • Brand B has no process. In turn, many of its individual properties have created their own Facebook pages and post content freely. There isn’t a consistent brand presence, there are no standards in place to guide postings, and postings are often completely irrelevant to the business (actual Tweet example from a franchisee: “I got to work today and have on two different shoes. LOL!”).

On the one end, the five-day process ensures that messages are appropriate and approved by everyone, but it doesn’t allow the opportunity to react or respond to news or announcements that might help the brand be more relevant.

On the other end, the lack of process allows freedom and flexibility but creates the risk of ultimately hurting the brand’s reputation.

Social media can be a powerful tool for brands when used appropriately and timely. Doing so requires a level of flexibility and the ability to let go of processes of the past. Should brands have a social media strategy? Absolutely. Should there be a process in place to ensure messages and content are brand appropriate? 100% yes. Should the social media content that brands produce be held to the same standards as traditional marketing? Even more so. Should every Tweet and Facebook post be routed for approval? That’s where things get sticky.

Every brand needs to develop its own comfort level, and the keys are trust and education. You trust your employees to represent your brand everyday, why shouldn’t you when it comes to social media? Consider taking the time to educate your team on the essential brand messages and character you wish to convey. Draft up some key brand attributes and circulate them widely. Let people know how you want your company or brand to be perceived. Then trust them to deliver the messages, just as they do every day in the off-line world.

The Long and Short of Name Development

by Mark Prus of NameFlashSM

Some of my name development clients are fans of long, keyword-rich names. Obviously the appeal of a search engine spotting your website is driving this approach.

Some of my naming clients are fans of short names that can be easily shared on Twitter.

Which approach is better?

I will confess I am a fan of short, memorable names. Steve Baird would agree. As Steve so eloquently puts it, “we live in a sound bite world.”

But I strongly believe that picking a name because it would be more attractive to search engines or because it is short enough to Tweet is a huge mistake. Any time you allow tactics to drive your strategy, you are heading down the road to ruin.

A far better approach is to hone your brand’s strategy and test it with consumers until you find the positioning that is going to make all the difference in your business, then develop a name. David Ogilvy once said "The results of your campaign depend less on how we write your advertising than on how your product is positioned." The same is true for your name. Spend time developing a positioning that rings the bell with consumers and then go find the perfect name that brings that positioning to life.

Sound like a difficult thing to do? Not really. I know I am biased by my 25+ years of experience in building great consumer brands, but this task is not difficult. Time consuming? Yes. At times painful? Yes. Expensive? Could be. But in the end, the process of honing the brand positioning and using that as a basis for name development will pay dividends for years to come.

If the name you choose ends up short enough to Twitter, then you may wish to include that tactic in your arsenal. If your name includes relevant keywords, so much the better! But please, don’t pick names because they work better with tactic A or Tactic B!

Your thoughts?

Name That (Zombie) Brand

Losing a trademark challenge is bad news, right? It’s costly, it’s embarrassing, and it can damage a brand’s reputation.

And yet in one well-known instance, losing a trademark challenge didn’t hurt a brand at all. In fact, it ensured the brand’s immortality.

The product name I’m thinking of existed for just three years in the 1990s before the death-dealing trademark challenge. The company name survived in slightly altered form; the product name was replaced by a series of successor names.

Now, more than eleven years after that legal defeat, the original product name is still used, erroneously but ubiquitously, to describe an entire class of products—products that themselves exist mostly as fading memories.

What's the product name?

I'll give you one more hint: it's a technology brand.

Answer after the jump.

Continue Reading...

Pepsi Throwback: The Renewed Choice of a Generation

       

In December, PepsiCo introduced the United States market to a new, special limited time offer. From December 28-February 22, the Pepsi brand would offer Pepsi Throwback. This version of Pepsi contains real sugar, just as Pepsi products did until the early 1980s. This is the second market trial of Pepsi Throwback, as it had originally been on store shelves in the spring of 2009. As we near the end of this limited time offer, I urge Pepsi to make Pepsi Throwback the standard Pepsi product permanently. Offering a cola product with real sugar and 1970s era nostalgia packaging will benefit the brand. It is a healthier product that will foster goodwill in the marketplace, it evokes positive memories and it gives the brand an advantage over Coca-Cola.

The best decision that Pepsi can make from a product standpoint is to remove high fructose corn syrup. Until the last 2-3 decades, the vast majority of colas were sweetened with sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. Since high fructose corn syrup was introduced, the nutrition value (or lack thereof) has been intensely debated, particularly in recent years. Many attribute high fructose corn syrup to causing higher rates of obesity. It is not smart strategy to use an ingredient that can be perceived as harmful to health. By removing high fructose corn syrup, Pepsi gains a competitive advantage over chief category rival Coca-Cola, assuming that Coca-Cola doesn’t revert back to sugar as well. Even if Coca-Cola does make the move, Pepsi would retain first mover advantage, and would still be more positively perceived. This move of returning a product to the original formula evokes nostalgia feelings. When a brand can be associated with positive, nostalgic feelings, it is usually a beneficial occurrence.

Continue Reading...

The (South) Butt of the Joke?

We've had a little rash of graphic design comedic parody lately.

North Face South Butt logos

The first example is the notoriously funny The South Butt and its tagline "Never Stop Relaxing". Of course, this is an obvious knockoff of leading outdoor clothier The North Face and its "Never Stop Exploring" call to action. From a legal perspective, of course, this is a bit problematic - especially when The South Butt began selling apparel. (Until then, a fun mockery might have earned them a nasty letter, but not a full-on lawsuit).

However, whether The North Face likes it or not, it is a victim of its own popularity. While the company was still a niche brand, focusing on only seasoned outdoorspeople, no one cared. But once it crossed over into high fashion (and became the must-have in every 13-year-old girl's wardrobe), a backlash was inevitable. The same thing happened to Abercrombie and Fitch (remember the raucously funny MadTV sketches)?

From a marketing perspective, The North Face should be content to let this go. Yes, it's irritating, and yes, legally it's an affront. But making too big of a deal of the situation likely will backfire.

Here's another example that should not be taken lying down.

HSUS and HumaneWatch logos

If I were the Humane Society of the United States, I would be preparing my lawsuit at this moment. Say what you will about the politics of the HSUS (suffice to say, it is not just about finding homes for adorable puppies), HumaneWatch is making a visual affront to the organization and its ability to distinguish itself in the market. In short, the competing organization is using HSUS intellectual property (the logo) to bolster its own low standing, confusing people into paying attention.

Whatever side of the political/moral/business issue you might be on, this has to be stopped.

Related Links:

http://www.thesouthbutt.com/

http://www.humanewatch.org/

—Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

Super Bowl Advertising: A Super Media Buy?

The Super Bowl is much more than a football game to determine a champion; it is a cultural phenomenon. One of the most important elements of Super Bowl Sunday isn’t the on the field action; it is the commercials on television during the breaks in the action. For companies that want to advertise during the game, it is quite costly to partake in this action. A 30 second spot during Super Bowl XLIV will cost $2.5-2.8 million. That figure only includes paying the television network for the time. It doesn’t include costs to produce the ad. The final cost for a 30 second Super Bowl ad could easily run $4 million +. With this in mind, there’s one glaring question. Is Super Bowl advertising worth the cost?

The answer to this question isn’t a simple and definitive yes or no. Advertising during the Super Bowl can raise brand awareness. It also can be used simply to remind a target market of the importance of a brand within a product category. Using an ad in this manner would reinforce existing brand beliefs and hopefully induce a desire to purchase. However, a Super Bowl advertisement can affect a company negatively if not executed correctly. The effectiveness of Super Bowl advertising depends on the perspective of the advertiser, a brand’s strategic objectives and other marketing mix elements.

One of the appealing elements of advertising during the Super Bowl is the fact that it consistently draws a significant audience. More than 90 million people in the United States have watched each of the last 4 Super Bowls. Every Super Bowl since Super Bowl XXVII in January 1993 has drawn at least 80 million viewers. This is noteworthy because television audiences have become far more fragmented over time. The proliferation of television networks with cable/satellite TV, video entertainment options such as video games and DVDs and the vast array of Internet content have been the primary causes of audience fragmentation. The Super Bowl has been one of the few television programs that has been relatively unscathed by audience fragmentation. As a result, the network broadcasting the game (CBS this year) can charge premium pricing for advertising.

Continue Reading...

Goodwill Hunting?

Similar to the Hostess Brands, Inc. predicament, recently posted by Dan Kelly, Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (www.goodwill.org), the well-known and respected non-profit, didn't own the one domain you would expect -- Goodwill.com.

The domain went up for auction this past December after the original owner, a Japanese staffing company named Goodwill Group, Inc., changed its name and allowed Goodwill.com to expire. 

Instead of seizing the opportunity to own and control this element of their brand by simply buying it at auction, Goodwill Industries gambled, in my opinion, by trying to stop the auction. Ultimately, they lost their request as well as the domain. Their next act was to sue the owner of Goodwill.com for trademark infringement and violation of anti-cybersquatting protection act, amongst other claims.

As reported by Domain Name Wire, this month the case was dismissed without prejudice and the Goodwill.com domain finally went to Goodwill Industries. Although this resolution is good for Goodwill, not owning Goodwill.com earlier denied them the domain during the key December donation period, and, potentially, could have proven a very expensive and lengthy process to resolve.

Since monitoring a domain is relatively uncomplicated, it is puzzling why Goodwill industries would allow Goodwill.com to get away so easily. As a brand manager, I am surprised Goodwill wasn't more vigilant or diligent in pursuing and protecting something so apparently associated with their trademark and their brand.

The goodwill (pun intended) a domain name inures to a brand cannot be overemphasized. One of the more important aspects of branding is presence. On the worldwide stage of the Internet, domains perform a leading role in brand proliferation. 

A domain dispute and the associated confusion, as in this case, was unnecessary, considering resolution could have been reached without extraordinary effort and without hunting for legal remedy.

Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch® 

Brand Signals: The Building Blocks of Brand Identity

Brands communicate with the world through a series of message delivery systems such as broadcast advertising, web sites, company representatives and product interaction. These systems utilize brand signals to communicate. While these signals commonly take the form of brand names and logos, they can also extend into sight, sound, touch, taste, smell or even action such as a brand ritual.

Brand signals are far more than an aesthetic veneer. They turn abstract meaning into tangible cues, allowing consumers to better navigate the marketplace. Functioning as vessels, these signals carry learned and associative meaning. That meaning is often instilled by the brand owner and further enhanced by the audience. The connotation of a brand signal evolves over time, as either the brand owner or its audience fills the vessel with new meaning that displaces the original. Take for example, two well know brand signals that once represented something very different than they do today, the ENRON name and logo. The original meaning was displaced by consumers’ new understanding of “ENRON.”

The most effective brands use a wide array of signals to manage consumers’ expectations. Many of these are co-authored by the brand owner and its audience. These signals communicate on multiple levels: Specifically and Categorically, Individually and Collectively.

Specifically and Categorically
When a signal is specific to a given brand, it directly equates to that brand: The names McDonald’s and Big Mac directly equate to the McDonald’s brand as do the golden arches and Ronald McDonald. Yet, we also recognize brand signals by category. These signals indicate brands by type. We relate the yellow and red color scheme to the fast food/burger category. Have you ever noticed how McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s all share the same color scheme? Coincidence? McDonald’s (first to market) established the color scheme that has defined the fast food burger joint category for generations.

Individually and Collectively
Some brand signals carry enough meaning to hold up individually such as a company’s name, its logo or even an iconic shape. Such is the case with Coca-Cola’s “contour bottle.” With its distinctive curves, it is one of the most recognized icons in the world. Designed so it could be identified in the dark and shaped so that, even if broken, it is identifiable at a glance; the unique bottle design ensures that Coca-Cola is never confused with competitors.

Other brand signals work collectively. A slice of lime on its own says nothing. However, when it adorns the neck of a clear beer bottle, the lime says Corona! Add a tropical beach and it screams!

Of course, individual signals can contribute to the collective, and categorical signals can contribute to the specific. Be they specific or categorical, individual or collective, not all brand signals are created intentionally. Many are associated with or equated to the brand over time. These signals are of no less value than those which are developed intentionally by the brand owner. The Corona lime ritual was not created by Corona, but rather a California bartender who, in 1981, made a bet with his buddy that he could start a trend. Corona might not have started the lime ritual, they may not own it legally, but they benefit from this well know brand signal.

Your own brand likely has signals that extend beyond its name and logo. By identifying and refining these signals, your brand can begin to own these mental cues to build a more engaging brand experience with your audience.

Mark Gallagher, Brand Expressionist® at Blackcoffee®. 

Obamatunistic Advertising

Weatherproof Ad: A Leader in Style

Jacket maker Weatherproof Garment Company took advantage of a GQ-style photo of the President standing in front of the picturesque Great Wall of China.

The White House was not pleased.

Smack in the middle of Times Square in New York - one of the busiest and most-watched intersections on Earth - stood a larger-than-life billboard featuring President Obama, in a Weatherproof jacket, in front of the Great Wall of China.

Now wait. Don't we see the image of the President just about everywhere? Your local newspaper doesn't need White House permission to feature the Pres on page 1, do they?

Of course not. But that's different.

News organizations (even bloggers) can use the image or likeness of political figures - with a few exceptions - in editorial content. That can include all manner of news reports, commentary, and even political cartoons. It's a sort of "fair use" interpretation and falls into the freedom of speech / freedom of the press continuum.

Clearly, that's not what Weatherproof was doing.

The headline "A leader in style" is clever, yes (borrowing "style points" from the unarguably GQ-ish President), but could hardly be seen as political commentary. Whatever Weatherproof may have tried to claim, the company is hoping to sell jackets. Plain and simple.

At least, that's how the White House interpreted it.

Last week, White House counsel Kendall Burman and Weatherproof spokesman Allen Cohen had a "cordial conversation" in which Mr. Burman reminded Mr. Cohen that public figures have a right to protect their likeness for commercial purposes. Needless to say, Weatherproof agreed to take down the billboards at the earliest possible time.

That said, it will be two weeks before the logistics line up to make that happen. Two weeks of continued visibility. Two weeks of continued buzz. All told, it will turn out to be a pretty good return on advertising investment.

Methinks Weatherproof knew exactly what it was doing when it flirted with the edge of the law.

This is gorilla advertising of the first order.

Yes, two billboards in Times Square aren't the equivalent of stuffing flyers under windshield wipers at your local supermarket, but it's still pretty darned creative. With a modest investment, and a cheap license fee from the Associated Press for the photo of the President in China, Weatherproof was able to generate disproportionate attention for their little campaign.

I have to admit, I took a look-see at the Weatherproof website. I need a new coat, and the one in the ad looks pretty good. Frankly, I never would have considered it otherwise. We'll have to see what the ad does for sales on a larger scale, but my guess is the net-net will be positive.

But aren't there any risks in this type of strategy?

Yes, certainly.

The President may engender good feelings for many people, and many people may view him as a style/trend leader, but those warm fuzzies are not universal. Does the Weatherproof brouhaha actually dissuade right-leaning buyers from the brand?

Perhaps.

But my guess is that Weatherproof understands its buyer demographics pretty well.

Was the campaign risky?  Yes. But did it pay off? I think 'yes' as well.

—Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

The Roar of Tiger Woods in Branding

Tiger Woods drives by Allison.jpg

The impact of the Tiger Woods scandal in branding can be viewed from two different perspectives. The first perspective comes from the point of view of the companies that paid Woods to endorse their products. The second perspective is how the personal brand of Tiger Woods will be impacted as the smoke clears from this series of events.

Two professors in University of California-Davis’ Economics Department attempted to measure the impact from the first perspective. They claimed that shareholders in publicly traded companies that Woods endorsed lost $5-12 billion in the weeks that followed the car accident in Florida that set off the scandal. They undoubtedly have an interesting perspective, but there are limiting factors in their research. However, an undisputable fact of the Tiger Woods scandal is that it put a lot of brand management teams in a very delicate situation. Brand managers at firms where Woods served as an endorser had to consider how their brands would be perceived by their target consumers if they were to continue the relationship. It is not an enviable position. 

When a brand chooses to link arms with a celebrity endorser, it must consider which celebrities will be effective endorsers. It is essential to select celebrities that will positively contribute to revenue growth and profitability. I believe that a celebrity endorser is most effective when the target consumer perceives them as attractive or desirable in some fashion and the product is related to the expertise of the celebrity. For example, Michael Jordan was an effective endorser of both Nike and Gatorade because of his status as an elite athlete and the fact that both brands are related to athletic performance. Gisele Bundchen is an effective endorser for Dolce & Gabbana fragrances because scent is an important aspect of appearance and she is the embodiment of phenomenal appearance. She would be far less effective as a celebrity endorser for the Toyota Camry. With regards to Tiger Woods, he is most effective in endorsing Nike Golf products and any other golf related brands. His effect is diminished for brands like Gillette and AT&T.

Continue Reading...

G Doesn't Grasp Successful Marketing

Mark Image

In November, I wrote about how Gatorade’s 2009 re-branding as G has been a complete failure. G was an ill-conceived approach to slowing sales in 2007 and 2008. It damaged brand equity, confused consumers and didn’t reverse the trend of falling unit sales.

In the final paragraph of my last blog, I noted that PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said the company is planning a “massive Gatorade transformation” for 2010. I recommended that Gatorade should follow the model of Coca-Cola when they decided to retire New Coke. By doing this, Coca-Cola admitted their mistake and moved on by hitting the reset button on their brand.

Initial details of PepsiCo’s 2010 “massive Gatorade transformation” have been made publicly known here, here and here. Gatorade’s brand strategy for 2010 seems mediocre. Although they are making some positive changes, other moves indicate that they still don’t understand how to successfully market their brand.

Continue Reading...

A Marketer's Perspective: Questioning The Value of Coined Trademarks?

I’m thrilled to have this platform to vent about a long-standing beef: awkward, made-up product and company names. Trademark lawyers call them coined.

Among the worst offenders are automobiles, technology and finance. When I was a kid, cars had names like Roadmaster, Thunderbird and Catalina. Now a prospective car buyer has to wade through an alphanumeric sea of names like IS, GLK350 and FX35.

I don’t blame trademark lawyers … exactly. But the need for a strong, legally defensible name no doubt accounts for some of the odd lexicography we see.

I reserve most of my reproach for the naming consultants who come up with these clunkers and the corporate executives who think that a vague name containing an X will magically transform their company into a paragon of the new economy.

See if you can match these 10 names to the products or services they represent. Warning: One of them is a complete fake, made up by me!

1. Celero                                   a. dental insurance

2. Tolamba                               b. private mortgage banking

3. Onvio                                     c. oil and gas operations

4. Fortex                                    d. email relationship manager

5. Xobni                                     e. fake!

6. Opteum                                 f. motion control equipment

7. Contango                              g. trading software

8. Nexxar                                   h. wealth management services

9. Provantis                               i. money transfer services

10. Graxxion                              j. allergy treatment

Answers are below the jump.

Continue Reading...

An Ode to the Brand of Brands, the King of Cola: Coke

   

Dear Coke:

I love you. You are an incredible product. You are the Babe Ruth of soft drinks, the proprietor of the word “cola,” and most of all, the brand of all brands. Your brand is not just bulletproof; it’s indestructible—even from self-inflicted damage.

Interbrand, the global branding giant, recently valued you at 63.3 billion dollars. We’re not talking stimulus money here, but that’s huge. Most brands would be happy with .3 billion dollars.

About a million times a day someone orders a Coke in a restaurant that serves the number two cola and is immediately given an apology, “I’m sorry, is Pepsi OK?” You have your closest competitor, a major brand in its own right, constantly admitting that they are not you. Have you ever heard somebody order a “Rum and Pepsi?” I haven’t.

You guys redesigned Santa Claus, for crying out loud.

   

Years ago, your name became slang for a dangerous drug. But who cares? Heck, you once had a bit of it in your formula, right? For some brands it would be a death sentence; for you, it’s a cool factoid of your heritage.

And that secret formula story is downright mythic. Created by Dr. Pemberton in 1886--only two people have it and each knows only half. One guy has it committed to memory and the other spent the last eight years in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney shooting Pepsi cans off fence posts. Ok, that’s a stretch.

You are so beloved by your customers that you have survived 100 years of changing tastes, cultural upheaval, and most famously, shooting yourself in both feet by introducing New Coke and dumping your flagship product. Did customers go running to a competitor and tank your sales, as happened to Tropicana this year for nothing more than a package change? No, they simply demanded in various levels of outrage that you bring it back. And you did.

Now that’s brand LOYALTY.

(A brand tangent: Which was worse: Vista or New Coke? Hard to say, but Coke just said, “Oops, my bad!” and moved on. Microsoft refused to back down and helped Apple grow.)

Branding briefs have leaked out from Coca Cola’s global headquarters in Atlanta (the city where the very first Coke was sold) stating that Coke should be positioned as the essence of life, an indivisible part of living fabulously. (Current slogan: “Open Happiness”) Coke is a global symbol of America, the most exported element of our culture, a fixture in hundreds of countries around the world.

 

And yet… And yet, as a brand you are terrifically hard to learn from. Mere mortal brands must worry constantly about their customers’ changing tastes and fickle loyalties. Coke? Not so much. I’m not saying you don’t market your cans off, but you’re so ubiquitous, so everywhere and everything, that it’s pretty hard to emulate your success. Sometimes it seems like you can afford to sponsor every sporting event on earth. Where’s the lesson in that?

Here’s what marketers can take home along with an ice cold six pack of cola heaven:

Coke is remarkably consistent. They haven’t meaningfully changed their Coca Cola name or logo in well over 100 years. (The original design was handwritten by Dr. Pemberton’s bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, in 1886. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.) They own the colors red and white and stick with them. (They recast Santa in their colors for a promotion in the 1930s that became the standard vision of the jolly old elf.) Coke owns and leverages the most famous package trademark ever—the Coke bottle. What does a Pepsi bottle look like?

Coke is a leader and acts like one. They execute a lot of marketing elements very well, from aggressive advertising and promotion, to highly effective distribution, to pairing themselves with other wholesome leading brands like McDonalds, NASCAR, American Idol and the Olympics. And Coke knows its brand story. Visit their web site and they’ll tell you. Click on a link and they’ll have their customers tell you. They keep their brand story alive and well and linked to American life in good times or bad. Coke keeps us going. It’s always the right time for a Coke.

      

Yes, Coke, I brand-love you. You have elevated your brand of sugar water to the status of cultural icon, yet I can fill up anytime I want for less than a buck. You are the amazing, infallible super-brand. In fact, you said it best with your slogan from many years ago, and it’s still true today: Coke is it.

—Dave Taylor, Taylor Brand Group

 

The Merger of Two Great Cities

File:Minneapolis seal.gif   File:StPaulSeal.png

An open call for change. Change where it counts, in brands.

Don't read this if you have a closed mind and can't imagine a different future beyond tomorrow. You know who you are, this will make you cringe and we don't need that on our conscience.

For the remaining, take a minute to consider that a city government and a business are fairly similar. They have income, expenses and they provide services to a specific audience. They employ people and should be governed by the same natural economics that exist for all organizations (for profit, government or not-for-profit).

Now consider the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) as two similar organizations. They have a fair amount of duplication, providing similar services, having similar roles, similar physical proximity, similar missions, etc. Yet, to this day they are separate operating organizations.

Yes. The suggestion here is a merger of cities and a merger of brands. Minneapolis and St. Paul.

  Thumbnail for version as of 18:22, 21 November 2008 

If you need examples, look to Budapest (Buda and Pest) and New York merging with Brooklyn. If you're wondering why there are no other modern examples, welcome to my world of wonderment.

Now, before your head starts to move back and forth, this doesn't mean we eliminate half the jobs. Though if you've been through a merger, there are efficiencies to be found in duplicate roles. It does mean someone has to figure out the brand strategy behind two merged brands. You could treat it like the two are still separate, but run them from one back office, creating the efficiencies of one government while still having two cities. Look to Byerly's and Lunds as a great example of how this could be accomplished. Or merge them in under an existing brand name (Twin Cities) would also be a good option. The last two options would be a new name entirely, which would be an interesting challenge if we involved voters in the naming decision. Lastly some smerging of the two names (Minnstpauleapolis) which would certainly not be our suggestion.

Whatever the strategy, the savings would be tremendous. This isn't savings to the organization, but rather savings to each citizen of these two great cities. If they were two businesses a merger would have occurred long ago.

 —Aaron Keller, Capsule

Don't Expect This to Have Tiger by the Tail...

 Tiger Woods drives by Allison.jpg

Tiger Woods’ scandal proves once again that celebrity gossip mongering is a blood sport. The bigger the celebrity, the more the blood will flow. In Tiger’s case, he can open up a blood bank. Though it’s unlikely to reach the insanity that was unleashed when Michael Jackson died last summer, it will take the feeding frenzy to a new, all-time low, not because of his marital infidelity, but because of his immense stature as an iconic personality and global brand.

Our addiction to sycophantic enabling of celebrity bad behavior is beyond the pale. We reward and celebrate mediocrity. We give a moral equivalency and equal airtime to those knowingly doing the wrong thing. The discussion isn’t about right versus wrong anymore, but instead the takeaway is “don’t get caught!” Woods’ actions aren’t praise-worthy, but the punishment meted out in the court of public opinion of his private, personal situation is off the charts. Tiger’s poor job at managing the damage control process seems to be as big an affront to the public as what got him into this position.

His off-links activities are irrelevant to the golf world in the scheme of what he has done for the sport in the past 15 years. Let’s remember he plays golf and doesn’t hold elected public office. He didn’t impugn the integrity of his sport by betting or use performance enhancing drugs. Does Tiger Woods deserve to be vilified like O.J. Simpson, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Marv Albert, Pete Rose, Alex Rodriguez, and many others?

Continue Reading...

Exponential Growth in the New World of Social Media

This post is not about candy bars or thoughts about whether the cross-section of a candy bar may function as a trademark, for that, see here.

This brief post is about a 100 Grand Super Size thank you to all of our readers, those who submit comments, those who offer suggestions, those who follow us on Twitter, our guest bloggers, and especially, all of you who spread the word about DuetsBlog in so many ways.

Our inaugural post on DuetsBlog was a short nine months ago, on March 5, 2009, when we introduced you to a fellow named Dr. No, and we noted his or her fascination with The Parade of Horribles.

Four months later, we celebrated our 10,000th unique visitor on DuetsBlog, here.

It is with great thanks to you, that nine months after launch, we are here to celebrate our 100,000th unique visitor on DuetsBlog.

Any predictions on when we might reach our 1,000,000th unique visitor?

Does False Advertising Pay in the Baby Formula Business?

For Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil, $13.5 million is a small price to pay to halt the slide towards store brand formula.

Some companies just have a knack for rubbing the federal courts the wrong way.

Case in point: Baby formula brand Enfamil and its maker, Mead Johnson Nutrition.

Last week, a federal court ruled Mead Johnson must pay $13.5 million in damages to its store-brand rival PBM Products for misleading advertising.  At issue was a series of comparative advertisements illustrating Enfamil's implicit claim that its product contains "a specific set of ingredients" that its competitor does not have.  Those deficiencies - so the ads imply - would lead to poor eye and brain development.

Yikes.

It should go without saying (even for the non-jury-selection specialist) that allowing a suit to go to jury when the claims involve lying to new mothers about their baby's health is more than just bone-headed.

And that's not the first time Mead Johnson's ruffled PBM's feathers.  AdAge details a history of squabbles over misleading advertising involving the baby formula giant.  You can read all about it here.

The whole situation begs the question: If Mead Johnson keeps losing in court, why does it keep pushing the limits with its advertising? 

The judge in the most recent case remarked that Mead Johnson engaged in this campaign under pressure from lagging sales.  Apparently, the generic "store brands" were gaining ground (recession-driven, no doubt), and Mead Johnson felt it needed to up the ante to halt the decline.

Perhaps the better question is: Does the strategy work?

I decided to do a little math to try to find out. 

It's been almost a decade since I've been an active baby formula buyer, but I remember how expensive the dry stuff could get.  Boy, things haven't changed.  For my experiment, I chose the Enfamil Lipil Milk-Based Infant Formula with Iron, powdered, in the 12.9 oz can.  Very similar to what my wife and I used to buy.  The average price per container was $14.99.  Some more, some less.  Cheaper if you buy it in bulk.  You get the idea.

In the industry, baby formula is lovingly referred to as "liquid gold".  At a 40 percent profit margin, it's easy to see why.  Obviously, the liquid (and therefore more-quickly perishable) versions sport a lower margin.  Powder margins are higher.  But just for fun, let's stick with the conservative 40 percent number for our calculations.

So, using quick "street math", we can deduce that Mead Johnson makes $6.00 per 12.9 oz. can of formula.

Now let's divide the settlement amount (the original $13.5 million plus perhaps an additional $1 million in legal fees for a total of $14.5 million) by the average profit per can of $6.00.  Of course, that assumes Mead Johnson sells nothing else, but you get the idea.  When you do that, you get just over 2.4 million.

2.4 million is the number of additional cans of formula the company would need to sell to break even from the settlement.

Does that seem difficult?

I don't think so.

Mead Johnson controls about 50 percent of the market for baby formula, or better than a $1.4 billion market in the US each year.  That's over 90 million cans of formula each year.  An extra 2.4 million cans?  Not so tough.

So we come back to the first question.  Does the misleading advertising make business sense?  If the judge's comments are accurate, Mead Johnson was likely more concerned with preventing the loss of the sales for those 2.4 million cans.  Is pushing the boundaries of advertising law worth the brand positioning risk in this case?

Put another way: Will mothers look at a court ruling (essentially saying the company was wrong, and its formula is no better than a generic) or will they believe the powerful pathos advertising appeals imploring them to look after the child's health?

Tough questions all.

But sadly, I think the math answers them.

—Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

Know What You Mean, Mean What You Know (You Know What I Mean?)

 

The story of Kentucky Fried Chicken is a fascinating one for certain.

Imagine you manage a brand that has "fried" in the name when an entire culture deems that word to be equal to an early death. The meaning of your name has changed, right under your feet. So what do you do?

Change your name to KFC. Okay, but the "fried" seems to stick around because, well, you do fry your chicken. Hard to avoid. Then, with what seems to be enough time (to someone) you start to refer to yourself as Kitchen Fresh Chicken. Okay, smart strategy but really needed about 100 years to execute (the approximate time for the "fried" generation to expire).

Speaking of expiration dates, let's talk about AARP. American Association of Retired Persons is a powerful and respected brand with a large audience.

But, for those of us under 40 and perhaps some over 40 it has different meaning. And, when AARP starts to market to us, it might feel like facing the stages of grief (denial, anger, acceptance, etc.). Denial being the stage this author is immersed in presently.

But, what if AARP took a page out of the KFC brand strategy handbook?

American Association of Rewired Persons. Yes, Rewired. Because who's really retiring after this financial meltdown, really? We'll get to an age where we decide to do what we want to do for income not what we need to do for income. Rewire our career, not retire. Think about it AARP. We'll still need you as our advocate and friend in this next stage of life, we'll just see it different.

Aaron Keller, Capsule

Getting Familiar With the Basics: A Planning Primer

It’s the last quarter of the year, and if you haven’t done your planning for 2010, I’ve got two things to say to you: 1) you’re late (you undoubtedly know that), and 2) you’re not alone.

But whether you’re in the middle of developing your 2010 plans, directing planning input from multiple sources, or reviewing plans for clarity and consistency, this blog’s for you.

Working with many different clients over the years, I have worked with many who have been given responsibility for planning who are not themselves trained strategic planners. This means that many of them have a limited understanding of the basics of strategic planning. Oh, they know their stuff and are often brilliant marketers, but some come from the technical side, some come from sales, some from communications – you get the picture. I will see the words “Objective”, “Goal”, “Strategy”, and “Tactic” used interchangeably. A stated “Mission” will have the hallmarks of “Vision”; a “Threat” is labeled a “Weakness”, etc. This makes me crazy, as these are all very different things, and they have very different meanings and functions.

In response I have prepared a primer of sorts that covers the basics of strategic planning terms and explanations for the many who are not trained strategic planners. I share its essence here, knowing that some of you will find this a tad didactic and below your level of operation. I would suggest that you can view this as a refresher. Overall I have the belief and fervent hope that others will certainly benefit from it.

Continue Reading...

Let's Play "Truth or Consequences": The New FTC Guides for Endorsements & Testimonials Bring Truth a Little Bit Closer

We all would agree that “As Seen on TV” is one of the great brands of all time. The brilliant marketeers behind it recognized the extraordinary power of television – people believe as true what they see on TV.

Why that is I’m sure has been the subject of enumerable studies; after all it defines who we are as consumers and sets the stage for a marketplace where the phrase “targeted consumer” takes on real meaning. Between infomercials laden with celebrity endorsement, a tried and (sometimes) true tactic for moving people closer to their wallets coupled with compelling “just like my neighbor” testimonials, and home shopping networks with live celebrities and testimonials whose “it has to be true” quality rings true for millions of people, consumers are drawn to purchase like moths to a light.

The online world has taken this phenomenon and cranked it up a notch. The more modern version of “As Seen on TV”, its sister brand “As Seen on the Internet” – is an even more powerful lure. It is extraordinary how so many people believe that the “default” for the Internet is Truth, as if there were a mysterious group of censors and law enforcement officials who were reading everything found on the Internet to ensure that anything false or fraudulent automatically was removed. If only that were so.

Social networking has taken this propensity to believe anything electronically delivered to an even higher level. People tend to believe as true what others in their electronic neighborhoods say. This tends to be the case whatever the form of visual channel, from “expert” blogs in About.com, to the thousands of pseudo-news blogs, closed social environments like Facebook or MySpace, or in some form of IM (Include Twitter here). The stories of fraudulent promotion on Twitter already are legion. Add to this the hundreds, perhaps thousands of for-hire bloggers who will supply testimonials for a fee, and the potential for online, “As Seen on the Internet” consumer deception increases dramatically.

It was inevitable that at some point the FTC would have to step in. The Federal Trade Commission historically has taken consumer fraud seriously, but the massive amounts of online fraud, ranging from paid for false testimonials to the most severe forms of identity theft , have created a new vigor in that agency.

On December 1, 2009, new Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Guides”), with heightened requirements for bloggers to disclose affiliations with sponsors of those endorsements, go into effect.  See FTC Press Release dated October 5, 2009, here.  The text of the Guides, 16 CFR Part 235, is available, here.  Although these Guides are advisory in nature and do not expand the scope of liability under Section 5, they are intended to provide guidance as to how the FTC would apply governing law to various fact patterns.

Continue Reading...

You See Blue Ovals, I See 3D Spheres

I must admit, I was quite intrigued by Dan Kelly’s Duets blog entry “I See Blue Ovals” (August 28, 2009). It got me thinking about some of the trends occurring in logo design today. My 20+ years in the world of branding has witnessed a few notable changes. Perhaps the most significant is the application of 3D effects to identity design. Many logos which were originally two-dimensional (circles), have recently morphed into spheres.

Take AT&T’s 3D sphere which replaced a 2D circle logo.

Minolta’s 3D design form also replaced its old 2D form.

XBOX has adopted a 3D design. 

Similarly, Xerox now uses a 3D sphere—a dramatic departure from their old logo (some would say that their new design borrowed heavily from XBOX).

This proliferation of 3D spheres also includes Firefox, BT, Sony Ericsson, and Wikipedia, to cite a few.

Part of the explanation for this transformation is pure evolution and advance in the field of design itself. CAD programs are now common in the design community, enabling and encouraging the application of three-dimensional drawing for corporate identities.

3D logo design isn’t limited to the development of spheres. GM, ABC, Apple, Ford (yes, the blue oval), Dell, VW, and Chevron (as well as countless others), have all been redesigned to bring dimensionality as well as a more modern, contemporary look and feel to their visual identities. As this trend continues, look for more logos of all shapes and sizes to take on 3D effects.

--Alan Bergstrom, Brand Insights

Naming the Store Brand

         

Every Sunday I go through the circulars in the paper looking for new products. I usually spend a lot of time with the ads from the national drug store chains (Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid). Recently, I observed that each chain seems to have a radically different philosophy on store brand naming. And while this observation isn’t earth shattering, it exposes the marketing strategies (or lack thereof) of each chain.

For example, check out the allergy section. The big brand names like Benadryl®, Claritin® and Zyrtec® all have store brand/private label competition. Walgreens naming protocol for its store brand is pretty straightforward and seems to be designed to help a consumer find the Walgreens knockoff of the branded product. You can buy Wal-dryl, Wal-itin, and Wal-zyr, and the packaging is color coded to make it easier.  This is a very consistent strategy that is designed to make life easier for the consumer and also designed to build the “Wal-“ prefix as a brand.

          Non-Drowsy 24 Hour Allergy,Tablets          

                    

At CVS, you have to be a well-informed consumer or a doctor to get it right because CVS attempts to align symptoms with branding. For example, the CVS version of Benadryl is called Allergy, while the CVS version of Claritin is called Non-Drowsy Allergy Relief (non-drowsy being a key benefit of the active ingredient in Claritin), and the Zyrtec knockoff product is called Indoor/Outdoor Allergy Relief (Zyrtec is the only brand with indoor/outdoor allergy claims).

                                     

Continue Reading...

What's G? For Gatorade, G is Gruesome

Gatorade’s efforts to re-brand as “G” have been a dismal failure. It seems as if the brand management staff at Gatorade consumed a few too many cold beverages while making this decision, and I’m not referring to refrigerated Gatorades.

The history of the G re-brand has its roots in 2007. Unit sales were flat in 2007 compared with 2006, after three years of double digit growth, according to market research firm Information Resources Inc (IRI). More poor results followed in 2008 despite product innovations and brand revitalization efforts (here and here).  In January 2009, Gatorade started the G re-brand. The G re-brand has done nothing to improve Gatorade’s bottom line. In fact, it has harmed the bottom line.

The decision to modify a brand name should not be taken lightly. A brand name communicates the essence of the brand to consumers. According to Rick Baer, Professor of Marketing at Thunderbird School of Global Management and former Global Brand Manager with Colgate-Palmolive and Dial Corporation, a brand name “should conjure up all the associations and images you want for your brand”. Does G accomplish that? The answer is a resounding no.

Continue Reading...

Assembly-Line Sports Marketing

In just 96 hours, John Sullivan could be hawking your products. That’s right, John Sullivan. Signed. Sealed. Delivered. No muss, no legal fuss. 

Wait a minute. Who’s John Sullivan? Well, for those living under a rock, he’s the first-year starter at center for the Minnesota Vikings, and a California company named Brand Affinity Technologies has figured out how to make him, and a handful of other mostly B-list NFL players, the newest wave in sports marketing.

Impossible! Can’t be done! John Sullivan hawking my products in just 96 hours? Yup, 96 hours. According to a recent article in the New York Times, Brand Affinity has streamlined the process of celebrity endorsements to something Henry Ford would be proud of. Contracts are standard. And so are the ad treatments, which are shot generically before you attach your brand to complete the campaign. Says a Brand Affinity spokesperson quoted in the article: “A company can contact a player, come to an agreement and the next day the ads could be up.” And it can all be done online.

Well, what fun is that?

Those of us who have toiled in the trenches of marketing recognize that the process of hammering out endorsement contracts and creating first-rate marketing with that newly minted spokesperson usually takes, shall we say, a bit more than four days. 

A well-thought-out contract should explore what’s possible, rather than close the door on the big idea. I’ll let you J.D.s list out all the other reasons why this cookie-cutter approach is flawed from a legal standpoint. From a marketer’s perspective, I view this as the equivalent of propping a brand next to a celebrity cardboard cutout. Sure, it’s good for a chuckle, but does anyone really believe you’re hanging out with that bikini-clad supermodel?

Effective marketing takes integration, collaboration and creativity. And those take time. With all due respect to John Sullivan, that can’t be accomplished by speed-dating your way through a bunch of B-list NFL players.

-Jorg Pierach, Fast Horse

Whatever Happened to the Adversarial System?

My job sometimes is rescuing attorneys, often from themselves. Perhaps the quintessential illustration is a comment made by a corporate general counsel recently, whose organization was responsible for a number of victims, including fatalities. Her opening line to me was, “We’re not the empathy department in this company.” However, the reason she was talking to me was that the organization was about to be inundated with lawsuits from survivors, additional victims not yet known, and the unintended negative visibility that generally accompanies these situations, especially when your organization is considered a perpetrator.

Clearly, the adversarial system works in the courtroom—a rigorously controlled process and environment. Outside the courtroom, the adversarial attitude quickly brands one as cold, arrogant, callous, and anti-victim.

One of my clients is among the largest losers in an intellectual property lawsuit involving copyright infringement. For some 25 years, this firm distributed (via the most convenient mechanism available) copies of a small, highly focused financial advisory newsletter to all of its agents, associates, and franchises. At the end of 25 years, the author of the newsletter decided to sue for infringement. When I heard about the case, my first question to the client’s legal department was, “What’s your plan to settle this case?”

I received two immediate responses: “We’re not interested in settling” and “We have a good defense.” “What,” I asked, “could possibly be a defense that passes the straight face test?” The lawyers’ response was that the individuals involved, “waited too long to file a lawsuit.” “They knew all along what this client was doing with the materials.” My response was, “Even as a non-attorney, my guess is they have you dead to rights. Try to get them paid today. It’s only going to get worse if you wait.” The answer was something along the lines of a trial being inevitable.

The lawyer was prophetic and, of course, the trial was worse and sillier than one can possibly imagine. The jury threw the book at my client. The verdict was never appealed even though there was some bluster at the time that, obviously, such a huge jury award would be appealed.

The lesson for all attorneys is getting clearer by the day: Even though our system is adversarial at its root, as the number of cases getting to trial decreases, more and more forces are pushing for settlement. Increasingly, the answer is to find and hire lawyers who are comfortable being empathetic. Being empathetic is the opposite of being adversarial. Empathy means doing things that matter, where actions speak far louder than words. The concept of empathy is often described as “putting yourself in someone’s shoes.” If that other person is a victim, you’ll be causing yourself and your argument, as well as your attempts to settle, extraordinary damage. Better to step back and look at what the “victim” needs that you can provide, promptly, as a means of settlement and resolution.

Ninety-nine cases out of 100 filed will be settled, arbitrated, negotiated, dropped, or dismissed. Having your day in court is getting to be a pretty rare event.

Oh, and did I mention learning how to apologize? We’ll save that for another blog post.

-- James E. Lukaszewski, The Lukaszewski Group Inc.
 

Describe Different

"What am I?"

Every invention begs this essential question of identity.

The answer is found in the product's descriptor. A descriptor defines a thing, categorizing it, framing it, positioning it and signaling its intended future.

A product that doesn't claim to break new ground adopts its category's standard convention. For example, a new, run-of-the-mill digital camera would be marketed as a "digital camera".

A revolutionary product, on the other hand, deserves an innovative product descriptor. And, sometimes, a me-too product benefits from one, too.

The trouble is, innovation is easier done than said.

I wrote in this article about the "brander's paradox": Human instincts make us wary of unfamiliar and different things, yet differentiation is essential to a product's success.

By definition, an innovation is unfamiliar. How can its product descriptor differentiate without triggering people's fear of the unknown?

The New York Times gives us an idea in this recent article about product descriptors,

"When people encounter something they don't recognize, they make sense of it by associating it with something familiar."

The most effective new descriptors combine familiar terms in unfamiliar ways. They make product function or form clearly understood, even upon first exposure. Novel descriptors insufficiently informative should at the very least pique interest.

Descriptors that differ

The products shown below the jump illustrate different approaches:

Continue Reading...

Affiliate Marketing

Trademark Infringement is a sticky subject online. Our first blog talked about Twitter and trademark infringement and today I want to address trademark infringement in relation to affiliate marketing

Affiliate Marketing is a process that rewards a blog or website for every customer that is brought to the company (the affiliate) that blog or website is promoting. The goal of the affiliate marketer is to bring visitors to the affiliate’s website in efforts to sell the affiliate’s products or services. Affiliate marketers will try numerous things in efforts to market these products or services in efforts to make money. In the past there have been lawsuits brought against marketers like this due to improper claims they were making about a product or service, who endorsed it, and if it worked. 

In August, a complaint like this was filed against not only the affiliate marketers but the affiliate as well. The claim is that the affiliate should be monitoring any and every marketing vehicle and message that is used in relation to its product.

Continue Reading...

Will Any Old B-Word Do?

This may have gone largely unnoticed but it did catch my attention. Brink's Home Security recently changed their brand name to Broadview Security and is spending $120 million to tell us about it, as discussed here, here, and here.

Broadview? Really? Is that the best the branding team at Landor Associates could come up with? Pardon my terminal preposition.

On Broadview's web site, the new entity cheerfully announces "We’re now Broadview Security, the next generation of Brink’s Home Security." What does that mean? There is no linkage between Broadview and Brink's to suggest a "next generation". If they are changing their name due to spinning off the business unit as a separate company, I can almost understand. But, how does that qualify as the next generation? Seems to be a reach. 

Another conundrum is their claim the new name "better reflects the wide range of services we offer you for your home and business". Oh, I get it, Broad = wide range of services and View = watchfulness. It took expert consultants and extensive research to arrive at that conclusion?

Brink's Incorporated, the venerable security company established in 1859, is well known for armored protection of valuables, including those of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The Brink's brand evokes a "heritage of trust", withstanding the test of time. Except for the Great Brink's Robbery of 1950, the Brink's brand is untarnished.

The Brink's Home Security brand comes from a single, unique and identifiable source. Conversely, Broadview Security lacks value, pedigree or heritage. It is not a brand -- it is merely a name. 

In a time of cost-consciousness, value is tantamount. One might want bespoke services which the Brink's brand implies but is completely lacking in Broadview's undefined and generic moniker, which a quick search on bing™ or Google™ reveals. Notice I didn't verb the brands?

Which would you prefer, the official looking Protected By Brinks Home Security badge or the restyled Broadview Security shield? 

 

Personally, when I think Brink's I see a big Rottweiler eyeing you warily. With Broadview I imagine a yappy Chihuahua chasing its tail.

It is Arnold Schwarzenegger versus Arnold Stang. Who would you choose to defend your assets?

      

I'm surprised they didn't follow the recent truncation trend to single-letter trademarks and just use "B" -- or "BS", if you include the word security. It might have been as meaningful.

Brink's was the better brand and had more muscle in my view. But if they were required to change their name they could have done better than Broadview.

Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®

 

The P-Word

It’s a jungle out there in corporate America. A hot, steamy, ardent, passionate jungle.

You’ve seen the evidence. Whole Foods is hiring “people with a passion for healthy living.” Bose seeks “people with a passion for innovation.” The South Florida Water Management District wants “good people with a passion for water.” Grant Thornton is looking for “people with a passion for the business of accounting.”

There’s plenty of heavy breathing outside the help-wanted ads, too. At last count, there were 960 live trademarks in the USPTO database that incorporated “passion” or “passionate,” from Dark Passion coffee to Elizabeth Taylor’s Passion perfume to Tango Passion, which turns out to be a brand of slot machines.

Some of the marks strain credulity, to say the least. Passion hearing aids—eh? “A Passion for Packaging”? (Packaging?) How about “Experience Our Passion for Flow”—the slogan of a company that makes, uh, flow meters.

And the lawyers—the lawyers! A random sampling of passionate legal slogans includes “Law. Life. Passion” (Nashville), “Passion. Knowledge. Strategy. Action” (Chicago), “A Passion for Justice” (West Palm Beach), and “Compassion for People. Passion for Justice” (Little Rock).

All together now: Get a room!

In all seriousness, when it’s overused like this, “passion” is drained of distinctiveness. The word may have had some shock value back in 1985, when Tom Peters published A Passion for Excellence and spawned a generation of passion-pitching management consultants and self-help gurus—and thousands of books with titles like Creating Passion Teams, Leading with Passion, and Turn Your Passion into Profit. Thanks to Peters, being a breadwinner was no longer sufficient: you had to fall head over heels in love with your job. Again and again.

“Passion” used to signify something special. When it first came into English from Old French in the 12th century, it retained its Latin meaning of “suffering” (as in “the Passion of the Christ”). Four hundred years later it took on a new meaning, “sexual desire,” and in the 17th century became synonymous with “deep, overwhelming emotion”—often caused by love or anger. And now? “Passion” sometimes means “enthusiasm,” sometimes “self-sacrifice,” and sometimes “a word we use to convince ourselves the long hours and tedious work are worth it.”

If you’ve been thinking about using the P-word in your own company brand, I suggest you first take this little quiz. Simply match the passionate slogan with the company—or even just the industry—that created it. Warning: although many of these slogans and brands are national or even global, I don’t expect anyone to ace the test. In fact, it’s so tough that more than two correct answers qualify you as a Passion Pro.

Answers after the jump.

Slogan

1.      Experience Our Passion!

2.      Unwavering Passion. Endless Dedication.

3.      Passion and Precision.

4.      Precision. Passion.

5.      Passion & Patience

6.      A Passion for Excellence

7.      Passion for Excellence

8.      A Passion to Perform

9.      A Passion for Performance

10.    A Passion to Go Beyond

11.    A Passion for Quality

12.    Sharing Our Passion

13.    Your Potential. Our Passion.

14.    Your Passion Is Our Obsession

15.    Trust. Integrity. Passion.

Industry

a. Banking

b. Tires

c.  Credit-union services

d. Golf equipment

e. Ice cream distributorships

f.  Computer data storage

g. Employment recruiting

h. Computer software and operating systems

i. Salami, cheese, and condiments

j. Sporting goods

k. Retail jewelers

l. Investment brokerage

m. Radiation therapy

n. Winery

o. Public relations

 

Continue Reading...

Experiences of an Altered Reality

An entire experience designed as an altered reality. Sounds like science fiction, but drop yourself into Las Vegas and you will likely see the world from a new perspective. The full bombardment of your senses is real but nothing around you really is. You feel real marble inside palaces meant to emulate palaces in Rome. You walk under the Eiffel Tower to enter a casino and look up to see painted clouds. In this case the opposite of real isn’t fake, but rather recreated reality that defines the Las Vegas experience.

Consider the experience of visiting Paris, France, and going to the top of the Eiffel Tower, touching the metal, smelling the grass, seeing the views. That experience isn’t trademarked, patented or protected in any form, to my knowledge. Now, when you consider an average American’s chance to walk under the “real” Eiffel Tower, the Las Vegas recreated version may inspire a visit to the real cultural icon in Paris. But, more likely it offers an alternative reality and what you’ve seen is your new reality. “Why go see the real Eiffel Tower when we’ve seen it in Las Vegas.” Does this equate to eating at a French restaurant makes you want to visit France? Maybe. But when does the altered reality become the new reality? When does a copy of an experience like the Eiffel Tower have an impact on how many people visit France? Or alternatively, if a replica of the Statue of Liberty existed in Tokyo, Japan, how would that impact travels to New York ? 

The design of experiences has been happening since the beginning of time, sometimes thoughtfully and others not as much. And, those that become iconic are often replicated by others. The Eiffel Tower is one of many modern examples. The Eiffel Tower is a designed experience and should offer certain rights and protections. Although authenticity can be felt by any average individual, there is a point where an altered reality impacts what is real. It would be a sad day when someone believes they’ve visited the Eiffel Tower after leaving the desert of Nevada.

No disrespect to the City of Las Vegas, you certainly have it going on, and I have seen your share of attempts by others to replicate the Vegas experience elsewhere.

Take a guess which version of the Eiffel Tower you are looking at here.

The experience of Las Vegas: What was your last memory of a family vacation?

Aaron Keller, Capsule

Bridging the Brand Consultant-Client Divide

From My Cousin Vinny:

Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witnesses who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

Judge: Mr. Gambini?

Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.

Judge: Overruled.

Not fair. That’s just how it feels sometimes.

You believe you have a sound position, a fine strategy or a winning campaign, all backed up by solid arguments. But then you’re overruled. And you’re left shaking your head and saying to yourself: “This is a winner. Why don’t they get it?”

I’m sure that’s how brand strategists and consultants, whether internal or external to an organization, feel at times when their proposals are rejected. In fact, I know that’s how they feel. I’ve been there.

Continue Reading...

Lion's Tap Shouldn't Have Sued. At Least Not So Soon.

A brief study in how the Lion's Tap could have had its burger and eaten it too.

I have to say, in the interest of full disclosure, I have an irrational love for the Lion's Tap.

Ever since I worked in Eden Prairie back in the 1990s, I've been hooked. Fast forward the better part of a decade, put our family a cool 35 miles away in Shoreview, and we still find ourselves driving nearly an hour on special occasions to grab a burger.

That's part of what made me so damn mad when I saw McDonald's latest billboards. Who's your patty? For Angus burgers? You've got to be kidding. Lion's Tap is "my" patty, thank you very much! They've had the slogan on their tastefully tacky t-shirts for over four years.

I thought about it though. I know Lion's Tap. But my guess is that only a small smattering of people do (perhaps 3-4% of the Twin Cities population if you were to survey). Who are they going to think came up with the slogan? And if they walked into Lion's Tap tomorrow, who would you think was ripping off whom? That's right. You guessed it.

It bugged me. I was a bit upset. I was ready to come to my restaurant's defense.

Until they sued.

You can read more here, but the fact of the matter is that Lion's Tap decided to run to the courts to remedy what is calls a trademark infringement case.

Here's the problem, instead of coming off as the victim (which you could argue Lion's Tap is), they come off as another coffee-in-the-crotch, show-me-the-money, lawsuit-happy opportunist. Just read some of the news stories and read some of the comments to see what I mean, here, here, and here.

Ick.

Let's explore what Lion's Tap "could have" done differently, and how it might have panned out.

Continue Reading...

Discerning a Pattern

Dan's wildly popular I See Blue Ovals post in August discerned a widespread, but very simple pattern -- logos having the color and shape of a blue oval. Several commenters added to the list, making the blue oval pattern even more widespread than originally disclosed.

Speaking of patterns, have you discerned a DuetsBlog pattern for Tuesdays yet?

Just so you know, and in case you haven't yet discerned the pattern, we have been treating Tuesdays as "GuestBlogger Day."

And, since yesterday was our six month anniversary after launching DuetsBlog on March 5, we'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed their bright and thought-provoking posts to DuetsBlog as GuestBloggers, you add so much to the conversation, thank you!

Now, at the risk of making this post start to sound too much like an Academy Awards acceptance speech, we'd also like to take this opportunity to thank all our readers and commenters for embracing what we have created here at DuetsBlog. 

The DuetsBlog conversation continues to grow at a much faster pace than we ever could have predicted, thanks to our readers, commenters, and GuestBloggers.

As you may recall, in the beginning of July, we reported that we had served over 10,000 unique visitors in four short months of operation. Now, two months later, we are thrilled to say we have served over 27,000 unique visitors during our first six months of life. Thanks so much for spreading the good word about DuetsBlog!

We have two requests of you:

(1) If you have topics you would like to see addressed on DuetsBlog, please let us know, we can't promise we'll cover them, but we'll certainly consider your ideas and do our best; and  

(2) If you have an interest in providing an original and thought provoking post to DuetsBlog as a GuestBlogger, please let us know, we'd be happy to discuss the possibility with you.

Last, but not least, stay tuned for Jason Voiovich's return as a GuestBlogger this coming Tuesday for his upcoming post on a really smart marketer's perspective to the Lion's Tap v. McDonald's trademark infringement case over the slogan: Who's Your Patty? You may recall Jason's highly popular The Case of the Screwed Screwmaker post from June16.

I previewed Jason's Lion's Tap post yesterday and I couldn't stop laughing -- his writing is smart, funny, and it won't disappoint!

Enjoy the rest of the Labor Day weekend!

Twitter, Twitter Everywhere -- But Will They Own the Tweet?

For the last month or so I've been following the antics of Twitter as they attempt to assert rights to the word "tweet". Based on their completely inconsistent—one might even say schizophrenic approach, I feel justified in using the word "antics".

Until very recently, Twitter didn't seem to care much about what third-party apps were named. In fact, in a blog post from July 2009, founder Biz Stone said, "Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. After all, Twitter is the name of our service and our company so the potential for confusion is much higher. When folks ask us about naming their application with "Twitter" we generally respond by suggesting more original branding for their project. This avoids potential confusion down the line."

Note the phrasing: “suggesting more original branding”. What happens if the developers don’t take the suggestion? By allowing so many third party apps to use the name already, they’ve tacitly given permission for others to infringe on their trademark. If they then try to defend their trademark against the new filers, what can they say?

Continue Reading...

On Your Marks, Get Set, Let's Go to Court!

With less than 6 months to go until the 21st Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, trade mark enforcement activities are beginning to heat up.

In January, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched its global campaign against the Canadian seal hunt with a version of the Vancouver 2010 Inukshuk logo clubbing a seal in a pool of blood above blood-soaked Olympic rings. PETA is also selling t-shirts, mugs, buttons and stickers displaying this logo, thus capitalizing on its use of the Olympic marks.

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC), has publicly stated that it has no jurisdiction in this matter on the grounds that with PETA based in the United States, it is the US Olympic Committee's (USOC) responsibility to enforce the International Olympic Committee's rights in its trade marks.

The USOC duly complained about PETA's use of the phrase "Vancouver 2010" and the image of the Olympic rings on its products. In response, PETA publicly took the position that its use was protected as fair use, being an obvious parody. "Absent ... confusion, and in the context of a critical and parodic use of the images, there is no trade mark infringement." And there the matter appears to have ended, for now.

In June, 2009, PETA pushed the matter further with the launch of its website www.OlympicShame2010.com, which portrays the Vancouver Olympic mascots Miga, Quatchi and Sumi as bloodthirsty seal killers. 

PETA is clearly targeting the Vancouver Olympics in an attempt to put pressure on the Canadian government to end the Canadian seal hunt. Thus far, VANOC has declined to attempt to enforce its rights under Canadian intellectual property law, and the question remains, could it?

Intended to combat ambush marketing, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (the OPMA) prohibits any person from adopting or using in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, an Olympic or Paralympic mark as set out in the Act. The OPMA provides for certain exceptions, including use for the purposes of criticism or parody. The Olympic rings, Inukshuk composite design, and the phrase "Vancouver 2010" are all Olympic marks for the purposes of the OPMA.

The Canadian Trade-marks Act also provides a mechanism to protect "official marks", which are uniquely Canadian. Entities that are "public authorities" such as VANOC and the Canadian Olympic Committee have the ability to request that public notice be given of their use and adoption. Once published in the Canadian Trade-marks Journal, official marks cannot be adopted by others in connection with a business, as trade marks or otherwise. Official marks, unlike regular trade marks, need not be associated with specific wares and services to be published and subsequently enforced. Once an official mark is published it does not need to be renewed and is virtually unexpungeable. Official marks accordingly possess far greater protection than any other kind of trade mark. The Inukshuk design, Olympic rings design, and Olympic mascot designs are all official marks owned by VANOC. 

 

With this statutory firepower at their disposal, could VANOC stop PETA's display of the Olympic marks?

PETA's "parody" defence could possibly be successful against any cause of action based on the OPMA, since the OPMA provides that use of an Olympic mark for the purposes of criticism or parody relating to Olympic Games is not a "use in connection with a business" (although one questions whether their "parody" qualifies as "parody relating to the Olympic or Paralympic Games"). 

Unlike the OPMA, there is no parody defence under the Canadian Trade-marks Act. However, to be successful, VANOC would have to prove that PETA's activities constitute adoption of the marks "in connection with a business" and that there is a sufficient Canadian nexus to PETA's activities for Canadian law to even apply. These are significant hurdles, and thus far, it appears that VANOC is reluctant to give PETA the publicity that a lawsuit would generate - no action has been commenced. 

An additional cause of action for VANOC could be copyright infringement based on PETA's use of the mascot designs. While PETA may view its use as fair use due to parody, there are a number of court cases holding that parody is not a defense to an infringement of intellectual property rights in Canada.

Megan Langley Grainger, Bereskin & Parr LLP

Viral Marketing: Building the Lore

So what is viral marketing? The simple answer is: a marketing strategy that encourages people to pass along a marketing message. Some will argue it’s a fancy word for word-of-mouth marketing. Others insist it has to take place online—through blogs, Twitter and such. But no matter how you define it, the beauty of a well thought out and executed viral marketing campaign can help make a mountain out of a molehill. Or a beloved local icon out of a fiberglass sculpture—as was the case when the Lake Creature arrived in Minneapolis.

When the Lake Creature appeared in the waters of Lake Harriet, we knew it would cause a ripple among folks in the area. But it was the strategic viral marketing campaign that turned it from a ripple to a tidal wave among greater Minneapolis residents and area visitors.   As visitors to Lake Harriet took in the creature’s beauty, their imaginations ran wild: Who brought it here? And what it was doing in the community? For the first week, the only clue was a sign at the lake with the address to a non-branded micro site where, upon logging in, residents could continue the fun by helping build the mystical creature’s lore.

That same week, the chatter on Twitter proved people were taking their conversations about the creature from the shoreline to online. “There’s a creature in Minneapolis,” they said. “Lake Harriet has its very own Nessy.” Some passed along the microsite address, others just speculated as to what the creature was doing in the Cities and why. Within minutes of posting their tweets, the powerful influencers would receive a message from the Lake Creature inviting them to follow her on Twitter and help direct people to the microsite to submit photos and stories. 

So when the Minneapolis Parks Foundation stepped forward in mid-July to announce it was behind the project and hoped the creature’s presence would help enhance the lives of residents and bring awareness to Minneapolis’ beautiful parks, most would say “mission accomplished.” In the first week alone the Lake Creature gained more than 150 followers on Twitter; nearly 7,000 people visited her site and the effort generated more than 3 million media impressions. She even has her own Facebook fan page. Some would say that’s a viral marketing fairy tale—and we won’t disagree.

Allison Checco, Fast Horse

A Shack by Any Other Name...

RadioShack recently introduced a new name, rebranding its stores "The Shack", which now adorns their retail environment and marketing efforts.

The change was prompted by a desire to update the 88-year-old brand as they transition to mobile phone and wireless products without losing brand equity and mind-share, according to RadioShack. As Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times mused, "For a company that wants to talk up its expertise in mobile phones, no one seems to have noticed that mobile phones are radios!"

To officially roll out the new, shortened, and supposedly hipper moniker, RadioShack staged "The Shack Summer Netogether" in NY and SF August 6 - 8, broadcasting the event live via "massive laptops" located in Times Square and Justin Herman Plaza, respectively. Video was streamed live on their Facebook page and their redesigned web site.

The current trend to truncate brand names is puzzling. Is this an attempt to beguile the text-message obsessed youth market, where everything is "abrv8d"? Or drive up sales through brand-brevity because we lack long attention spans?

I understand distilling a brand to its essence. Coke and FedEx are good examples, but Pizza Hut and Circuit City are not.

Continue Reading...

To Google® Or Not To Google®

Full disclosure…I own Google stock. I like their products and their potential. However, I am more than a bit concerned about how they use their names and trademarks.

Microsoft® names its products in a traditional fashion. Microsoft is the company; names like Windows, Silverlight, Bing are clearly the products. A very logical naming architecture that makes it clear where the company ends and the product begins.

Google is a company and a trademark for several goods and services. The Google trademark is perhaps best known for “Search engine services” (International Class 042) but Google can also be “Dissemination of advertising for others via the Internet” (IC 035) or “Telecommunication services” (IC 038) or “Financial services” (IC 036) or any of a number of different product or service ideas that carry the name Google.

Add other words to Google and you get more products and services…things like Google Checkout; Google Talk; Google Wave; the list goes on and on. And a trip through Google Labs made me wonder if there really is an overriding naming architecture for the Google Brand.  

I think the heart of the issue is Google’s youth…let’s not forget that their IPO was only 5 years ago (August 19, 2004 if you are planning a celebration). Google appears to follow a primary rule of the Internet as stated on the Google website: “At Google, we believe in launching early and often.” Obviously the “put something out there and see if it works” strategy has been working for them. But to apply a similar philosophy to names is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Look at Microsoft and the fiasco known as Vista. The product was launched as Windows Vista, and quickly unraveled to the point where Microsoft had to get Windows 7 out the door quickly as a replacement. What failure did consumers have in their minds? Vista. Vista was known as a dog to be avoided at all costs. Not “Microsoft” or even “Microsoft Vista”. Vista.

What if Google had launched Vista? OK, it probably never would have happened but work with me here. Following their most obvious naming architecture, they probably would have called it Google Vista. And as it failed, the black eye would have extended to the Google Brand, which might have resulted in a lower Google stock price in the short term until people had a better experience with the Google name. Microsoft had collateral damage with Vista…Google Vista would have hit an artery.

The recent announcement that Google was going to begin advertising its Google Apps as a better alternative to Microsoft Office pushed me over the edge. DuetsBlog has had several recent postings about “Verbing” brand names and the risks that are inherent in that effort. Google has “benefitted” by “Verbing” over the years in search (“Let’s Google It”). With their new ad campaign, Google found a way to weaken the trademarks of its company and products all in one swoop by telling people what “Going Google” means.

As a marketer, I love the idea of “Going Google” as much as I love owning “Let’s Google It.” However, I fear that from a naming and trademark perspective, this is not going to make any of the Google trademarks stronger and in fact runs the risk of weakening them. When you add in the blatant implication of monopoly (I suppose when you “Go Google” there is no turning back), I am worried even more.  Remember, the Department of Justice investigated Google as a potential monopoly earlier this year.

I am not trying to bring down the Empire…far from it (again, remember I am a shareholder). But I would love to understand what Google is trying to do with its many names and trademarks. Is there a plan? Or is the Google Brand a victim of the “launch early and often” practice? That has clearly worked to date in building a big business. Is it Best Practice in naming? Will it continue to work in the future?

Mark Prus, NameFlashSM

"No Comment" is No Longer an Option

The premise of this blog, Duets, suggests a certain harmony results when law and marketing play together. Is the same true for the law and public relations, a discipline that is part marketing and part business management? 

It brings to mind vintage perceptions of lawyers providing counsel as media swarm people exiting a courthouse. Classic Perry Mason, the attorney and client dismiss the reporters with the familiar, “No comment.” 

This simple statement technically says nothing but really says everything. 

With that perspective, some might think that attorneys and public relations practitioners are at odds. The legal point of view: Say as little as possible. The PR recommendation: Communicate openly and frequently with everyone in every possible way.

At the heart of public relations, it’s about building trust through action and communication. What an organization or person does and how much is or isn’t said as well as the sincerity, context and credibility of the messenger all contribute to the perception of truth and reputation.

On one level it’s simple: say what you mean and do what you say. Yet we know it’s far more challenging than that, especially today with an overwhelming number of online and offline connections. 

Today, it’s not just relationships between people, but relationships with brands and with ideas. Amazon’s Kindle has tens of thousands of followers on Twitter and even community initiatives such as www.stopthedrinktax.com have nearly 7,000 fans on Facebook

Heck, I have enough trouble communicating and showing my interest and concern for the people I care about without worrying about the followers of my company and its brand on Twitter! Yet, I do – in business, we have to -- take these brand relationships seriously and work to nurture trust and mutually beneficial interactions. 

It would be easy to say “no comment” or simply post nothing, yet there is an expectation and obligation to act and communicate. What did commentary by Bernie Madoff or Michael Jackson make you think? How did it impact your perceptions of them, their businesses and industries?

As we build and represent brands, there is an increasing need to protect these brands – legally via trademarks and copyright – and equally important, an increasing need to build brand trust through communication. That’s the potentially beautiful duet that can play when legal and PR counsel work in harmony to comment or not to comment as the situation dictates.

Rose McKinney, Risdall McKinney Public Relations

Internet Surveys -- Powerful Yet Perilous

Before the emergence of the Internet, there were two major conventional ways of doing intellectual property consumer surveys — mall intercept surveys and telephone surveys.   Mall intercepts work best for branded, consumer products where there is a visual element to be tested. They are moderately expensive and require some incentive. Telephone interviews are good for brand names, genericness studies or other types of research where the respondent does not need to view a visual. Most telephone research requires no incentives.

The Internet, in theory, combines the best of both worlds. Internet surveys not only permit the asking of verbal questions and recording verbatim answers, they also permit transmission of visual images such as products, labels, logos and packaging. Internet technology also permits sound transmission. Transmission costs are minimal with an e-mail blast of 5,000 names costing about $800 or $160 per thousand. (Typical mall costs are $30-$40 per interview). Unfortunately, there is no telephone book for e-mail addresses, and in order to use this medium you have to hook into a vendor that has large opt-in consumer panel data bases. By using opt-in panels, you will bypass all the SPAM filers and anti-SPAM on-line watchdogs. Moreover, you have an instant, real-time tabulation process.

Continue Reading...

Hide in Plain Sight: Using Social Networking Tools to Protect Your Personal Brand

I just did a Google search of myself. Save one entry, the entire first page of results, including my website, blog, LinkedIn profile, FaceBook page and other information was content created and controlled by me. Had you done that search before I set up various social networking pages a year ago, you would have found the amusing photo of me in the early 90s with a lot of blond hair, still hosted on a website of a friend in St. Cloud.

While that photo is not exactly baring it all in Cancun, it is also not what I want to show to anyone looking to hire me. Jumping into social networking has many potential pitfalls but it gives you the opportunity to control more of the early-page search results for yourself and your company. While I agree with Dan Kelly’s earlier post (The Rise and Fall of Social Networks?) that social networking sites are “clunky, inefficient and inhospitable,” they are one of the most critical spaces to take control of our reputations and brands.

Setting up a firm page on FaceBook or a LinkedIn profile takes control of your personal or business brand. Establishing social networking policies (among my advice is never FaceBook or Twitter after even one martini) addresses the privacy and discretion gap that is a big part of inter-generational issues. Boomers and above tend to think sharing pictures of themselves on the information highway is similar to putting their personal details on a billboard. They have a “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” mentality. Millennials will happily share photos of themselves at the proverbial slots, whooping it up.

Hoping social networking will go away while letting your unhappy staff or customers control the cyber reputation conversation is naïve. Take control of your personal brand through social networking and hide in plain sight.

Wendy Nemitz, Principal, Ingenuity Marketing Group

FOREBRANDING™: The Role of Internal Congruence and Culture

It’s a dilemma: the economy is in the toilet, panic sets in, and long–range planning gives way to short-term thinking. It’s completely rational and logical, of course, and that just makes it worse. Now managers who should really know better are merely looking to the end of the quarter – or next quarter at best – and holding their breath instead of keeping their eyes on the big picture. Truth is no one upstairs wants them to look at the big picture right now – they just want company in their crowded Chicken Little suites.

Despite the vagaries of economic conditions new brands will always require sturdy foundations of rigorous, disciplined construction, and that takes time and money. To develop and launch a healthy, connective and authentic brand considerable groundwork must be done in advance; what any branding expert worth their salt considers due diligence. I call it Forebranding™ - all the work that is done before that brand’s identity is manifested in visual and verbal identity.

A brand can be dumped into the marketplace with a casually developed visual and verbal identity wrapped around it. But if that identity isn’t based upon a relevant, authentic personality and truly reflective of the corporate culture behind it, consumers will ultimately smell a phony and not connect or remain connected.

WHY FOCUS ON CULTURE?

Continue Reading...

It's Time to Rebrand Branding

Like most people, I look forward to summer with great anticipation. But amidst the sunny skies and good times there is one thing I dread: BBQ chitchat. I am no wallflower, I just know inevitably it will circle to the question I fear most, “So, what do you do?"

Stuttering, I produce the blandest description, jolting the conversation to a halt. I start with the simple truth, “Branding.” Which generally is met with a blank stare, so I go a little deeper, “I mean, Brand Consulting.” The raised eyebrow forces me to admit defeat: “… uh… marketing?” People politely nod at my conversation killer, turn to my fiancé, and squeal, “Tell me more about being a pilot!”

What I do is challenging, creative and, frankly, really cool. My inability to meaningfully describe it is shameful because I consider myself an expert at helping others succinctly express what they do. Although I’ll take some blame, ultimately I look to the entire branding industry as playing a large role. 

The industry has grown and become more recognized, and it’s also become simultaneously diluted and confusing. “Branding” clearly needs to take a dose of it’s own medicine and rebrand itself.

Continue Reading...

The Title of Your Story

What’s the first thing you think about when you’re naming a company or a product? Securing a domain? Avoiding trademark conflict? Sounding different from your competitors?

All are important concerns. But I contend that the first thing you should think about is this:

A name is the title of your story.

Yes, you’re naming your company or your product. But what you’re really doing is putting a title on the story you’re telling investors, shareholders, customers, and employees.

If you’re smart and lucky, the name you choose will be the title of a great story. A best-seller. A legend. A tale told around the campfire for generations.

If you’re haphazard or confused or pretentious or timid, your name will end up on the equivalent of the remainders table at your local bookstore: piles of copies at 70 percent off.

You can have a great story that nobody wants to read because the title is pedestrian or perplexing or pompous.

Or you can create demand for your story by giving it a title that tells just enough without giving away the plot.

So before you do any internal namestorming or hire a name developer, spend some time thinking about the story your company or product needs to tell.

Continue Reading...

Thriving In A Speeded-Up World

Moore’s Law holds that the power of an integrated circuit will double every two years. That prediction, made in 1965 by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, has proved remarkably durable.

The continued application of Moore’s Law has taken us in a few decades from crude transistor radios to handheld information devices packing more power than entire rooms of mainframe computers that sent the first spaceships to the moon.

And it’s unleashed an unprecedented burst of creativity, as the reach of the Internet allows people from around the globe to exchange information and build on each other’s ideas at dizzying speed.

Continue Reading...

The Case of the Screwed Screw Maker

My business partner just finished building his deck. In addition to the bureaucratic ordeal, that is obtaining permitting, he decided to go the extra frustrating mile and install composite deck boards versus treated wood. Fair enough. There was just one little wrinkle: Normal deck screws will "mushroom" on you unless they are pre-drilled, or worse, split the board entirely. If you're not careful, you can go through a few boards before you figure it out. And the boards are (not surprisingly) much more expensive.

To solve the problem, builders are instructed to use special screws.SplitStop™ screws seem to be the preferred choice - they have the patents (5,516,248, 5199,839, if you're curious) - although others "claim" to work just as well. A simple Google search returns no less than 10 competing brands, all making a seemingly fair case that their screw is the right screw for the job. But none of them have the SplitStop patent, and numerous articles by independent reviewers bemoan the confusion in the marketplace.

In addition to the "patent" confusion, throw in a dose of "trademark" confusion, and you have a veritable IP mess. Titan Metal Werks (who owns the SplitStop name and patents) also markets the DeckEase™ product. Compare that to TrapEase™ (marketed by competitor FastenMaster).

And therein lies the question: What is Titan to do? Are the others infringing? Perhaps. Are they causing confusion in the market? Certainly. Is the confusion hurting the reputation of the Titan brands? Probably. Will Titan be able to get them to stop? Doubtful.

Continue Reading...

Misleading Pharma Ads on Search Engines (Google)

In April the FDA sent formal letters to a number of pharma companies warning them of their misleading paid search ads in Google. Essentially the FDA wants pharma brands to put their full name of their product and associated risks in the ad. The problem as stated by pharma companies is that these paid search ads in search engines are only 95 characters in length and there isn’t enough space to include the name and the risks, not to mention the benefits.

If you’ve been following the subsequent online discussion about these FDA letters, you’ll see that much of the debate is centered around the idea that the FDA suggestions may be making things more confusing for the consumer rather than helping them. Although there is the potential for the FDA to drive some unintended, consequences, it seems to me that there is some common sense interpretations of the FDA suggestions that are the right thing to do for all parties.

The unintended consequence most mentioned, is that forcing further requirements on pharma companies has reduced participation from them and thus opened the door for Canadian online pharmacies and natural supplements. If you do a drug search today, you’ll see this is already happening. (Side note: Google has a fairly responsive protocol for a brand to file trademark paperwork to stop other brands from using their trademark.)

Continue Reading...

How David Can Beat Goliath in Naming OTC Medicines

After 25+ years in the highly competitive world of OTC medicines, I’ve learned some things about naming products. One thing I’ve learned is you have to understand the “Goliaths” of the category and zig when they zag.

Many OTC categories are dominated by brands that have been building equity for 50+ years. Brands like TUMS® (75+ years) and Bayer® Aspirin (100+ years) are Goliaths because they are well positioned, satisfy consumer needs, and have had consistent marketing support. Should you study these historical successes? You bet. People buy these brands for a reason. Find it. Exploit it if you can with a name of your own.

Another Goliath is the constant influx of new Rx-To-OTC switches. Brands like Advil® (introduced 1984), Claritin® (1993) and Prilosec® OTC (2003) are “switch Goliaths” that turned categories upside down.

Sometimes the switch carries the prescription name into the OTC market (e.g., Claritin®) and sometimes it does not (e.g., Advil® for the generic ibuprofen). If the entire Rx franchise is switching (as in Claritin®), then the Rx name is usable…and who would walk away from the years of Rx equity building by changing the name? Sometimes a portion of the Rx brand will remain Rx which means the OTC version must have a different name or carry a suffix to differentiate the OTC brand from the Rx brand (e.g., Prilosec® OTC). Sometimes a product is launched through a licensing deal where the manufacturer wants to retain the Rx name or perhaps the Rx name has “baggage” associated with it that the new company wants to avoid (as was the case for alli® instead of Xenical® the Rx name). The FDA will still have its say on the name, but the company has more flexibility to name the product.

“Switch Goliaths” have extremely deep pockets and intensely loyal customers. The switch brings new users into the category from the Rx franchise and they do not pass GO…they go straight to the ingredient/brand that they know and love. This process short circuits the decision-making process and really gives unfair advantage from a naming perspective. 

A final Goliath is the huge investment that pharmaceutical companies make in the consumer marketplace for their Rx products. Prilosec® (the Rx product) outspent the entire OTC stomach remedy category by 2 to 1. These 900 pound Goliaths are dancing on a daily basis, and you’ve got to be aware of their dance steps lest you get squashed like a bug.

How can David beat Goliath? You really have to understand the market dynamics in your particular category and formulate a naming strategy based on what you learn.

If your category has strong historical brands, you can leverage this and make your new brand look like the next generation. The best example of this was the introduction of Advil®, where a timeline easily showed that first there was aspirin, then Tylenol®, and now there is Advil®, Advanced Medicine for Pain™. A modern, contemporary name might be the ticket to success.

If you are competing against numerous Rx products in your category, you cannot out gun them, but you can emulate them. I once developed the name “Provia” for an OTC GI product. It sounded so much like a product with an Rx heritage that many consumers swore the product was already on the market and it was a terrific product because it used to be Rx. It was memorable because it had strong Rx cues.

OTC medicines are a difficult naming category with numerous Goliaths. You can win by remembering that “when underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win” according to political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft, who concluded that Davids beat Goliaths 71.5% of the time, as noted by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker last month.

Mark Prus, NameFlashSM

Twitter Squatting? Trademarks and Twitter

What is Twitter? What’s a Tweet? Can I be Tweeted?  Will a Tweet hurt? Twitter is a micro-blogging portal that allows for sharing messages and links that are 140 characters or less and it is being talked about everywhere. This buzz is causing clients to ask questions, similar to those above, about what this space means for them. The majority of these questions seem to be surrounding trademark rights with Twitter profile names. Similar to the domain name “squatting” from the early 90’s, people are registering Twitter names for brands that they do not represent. 

First, it is important to remember that as social media continues to take over the on-line space companies need to be registering their names on these sites. If a company is proactive about this process, the issues surrounding trademark violation will not occur. Second, let’s be honest, very few companies have the resources, time, or ingenuity to realize they need to be doing this. That being said, there are many things a company can do to reclaim their trademarked Twitter name from its current owner.

The first thing a company should do when it finds their trademarked brand has been taken on Twitter is see when the last tweet was sent from the account. If the account has not had activity for 30+ days and the company can prove the trademark, the company can work with Twitter directly to retrieve the account. If the account is being actively used the company should personally reach out to the person who has it. Simply ask them to turn the profile over to the company and reference the trademark rights. It is important to note that the company will likely fair better by playing nice and offering a complimentary something to the person for their time and inconvenience. If the profile is not surrendered after these efforts legal steps can be taken to retrieve the account. Another thing to consider is that if the person who owns the account is not causing detriment to the brand it may be timelier to simply create a differing variation of the trademarked name and begin Tweeting from the new account. 

Happy Tweeting

—Ted Risdall, Risdall Marketing

Brand Building with Tiny Rock Hammers

Branding is a business of tiny rock hammers and wrecking balls.

Hear me out.

I’ve always believed that we can cull lessons from movies, so let me share one on branding success from one of my favorites, The Shawshank Redemption.

The main character, a banker named Andy Dufraine (Tim Robbins), is sentenced to life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

At Shawshank prison, he becomes friends with Red (Morgan Freeman) who is able to get things from the outside. Saying he likes geology, Andy asks Red for a tiny rock hammer and later for a poster of Rita Hayworth.

I’m not going to get into the full plot and deeper meaning of the movie, but suffice to say Andy doesn’t use the tiny rock hammer to play with rocks and mold chess pieces. He uses it to dig his way out of the concrete wall in his cell, hiding the hole with the poster. The endeavor to secure his freedom takes him 20 years.

Branding can be like chipping away at a concrete wall. It takes time, patience and determination.

You don’t slap a name on a product or a business, call it a day and then expect a brand to flourish.

Rather, you begin the hard work of chipping (infusing) meaning into the brand. And you do it mostly by living the brand. To quote Andy: “I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really: get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’.”

A brand is nothing less than what you put into it. Everything you say and everything you do become a reflection of your brand. In particular, it’s everything you say matching everything you do (high say, high do).

You can say who you are until the cows come home. You can spend millions of dollars on marketing. You can have the slickest ads. But if your customers’ experiences don’t live up to the promise your brand represents, you’re getting busy dyin’ and quick!

We are in love with wrecking balls, aren’t we? We love the big impact hits, the big breakthroughs, the game changers, the transformations, etc.

Oh, I’m all for a hard hitting wrecking ball. Apple’s “1984” television commercial comes to mind. Recognized today as one of the most influential commercials of all time, Apple used it to introduce the Macintosh computer. The ad startled all who saw it, generated millions upon millions of dollars of free publicity and turned Apple into a household name. The high impact ad was a wrecking ball for Apple.

The thing is… wrecking balls don’t come along very often. Just when you think you might have one, its actual impact disappoints.

More often than not, you need to chip away with a tiny rock hammer to earn your place in the minds and hearts of those you care about.

Should we rule out wrecking ball tactics? Of course not… but as I’ve said before, branding is not a 5K or a sprint; it’s a marathon event. What you need in brand building more than anything is persistence and a commitment to give your brand meaning over time versus overnight. You can still break through… you can still be remarkable and be seen as remarkable… it just might take longer than you’d like to achieve this level of success.

Does this make sense to you? What are your thoughts on the use of tiny rock hammers and wrecking balls in brand building?

—David Cameron, On Brands

What Speed Dating Can Teach Us About Branding

Don’t think speed dating and branding have anything in common? Consider this. In a typical speed dating scenario, you walk into a room, you see 20 different people you don’t know anything about, and you get to spend about 60 seconds with each one. Then, you decide if you want to build a relationship with any of them.

Sound familiar?

It’s a lot like introducing your brand to consumers. You’re up against lots of other brands, you’ve got about 60 seconds to connect with them, and you have to make one hell of a good impression. So here are a few speed dating techniques you can effectively apply to branding.

1. Be interesting and engaging. Have a real personality...YOUR personality. The last thing you want to do is have people forget you 30 seconds after they meet you. Find a way to stand out and be memorable.

2. Don’t tell your whole life story right away. Can you imagine how boring it would be to listen to someone babble on and on about every detail of their lives? You’d tune them out incredibly fast. Yet, that’s what a lot of brands do—try to tell the consumer every feature, every benefit and every difference the very first time they meet.

3. Look good...no, GREAT. Make sure ALL your marketing materials—from business cards to brochures to your web site — make you look absolutely stunning. You’re not going to get a second date if your web site is dressed in 70’s disco pants and a mullet hairdo. (Unless, of course, you’re selling retro disco fashions!)

4. Be yourself. The more true to your brand you are, the more people will feel you are authentic, and will connect with you.

Speed dating has some great techniques you can use to introduce your brand to new customers. If it’s done right, it leads to the ultimate branding goal—a long term, loving relationship.

Erik Meade, MindFire Communications

Is Naming a Billion Dollar Entity Different Than a Million Dollar One?

Capsule recently helped name an international spin-off from Fiserv (a $10 billion business), now called StoneRiver and comprising one billion dollars in revenue. This seemed like the perfect opportunity to compare that process with our experience naming a million dollar business in the promotions category: Sidecar. Now that both projects are successfully completed, we can certainly say the difference is clear.

Capsule used the same criteria (memorable, protectable and relevant) in both scenarios. Names were generated using the same unique ideation techniques and filtered thoroughly in roughly the same manner. Similar education materials and methods were used in each presentation of names. If you had followed the process casually it might have appeared fairly similar, but in fact the differences were dramatic. 

The formation of any billion-dollar start up has plenty of opportunities for contention. So, when this large team went through Capsule’s brand definition process, sustaining collaboration and consensus was the unwritten, but highly understood, rule. The final name had to pass the scrutiny of more than a dozen leaders, managers and team members. It also had to be a rallying point for the company. The name had to be the first flag raised above this new venture to signal a bright future for employees, collaborators and customers.

No pressure, just naming.

Now, the million-dollar venture, Sidecar. No less important to each individual member of the team, perhaps even more to the owner who had thrived for over a decade with her existing name. Less lives impacted if things didn’t go well, but perhaps with greater pain if the process was a failure.

While it’s true that fewer people in the process can mean an easier decision-making process, it can also place more risk of failure upon one set of shoulders. So, more risk for an individual can result in almost the same amount of time for one person to make the same decision as a large committee. Make sense? Seems to if you look at the impact of the decision. It also makes sense to consider each with the same amount of care, nurturing and mutual respect.

Regardless of the size of the organization being named, the same important pieces will always be at play: criteria, process, collaboration and risk. Naming is most successful when it’s considered as a point of collaboration.

No pressure, just naming.

Aaron Keller, Capsule

The Pros and Cons of Name Styles: A Marketer's Perspective

Which is better: a descriptive brand name like Rollerblade, an abstract/emotional brand name like Virgin, or a suggestive brand name that hints at either the function or the benefit like Energizer? The lawyers will tell you to go abstract (they like wildly differentiated names because they’re easier to protect). But marketers need more than just protectability. They need to promote their wares too.

Of course, each of these naming styles has advantages and disadvantages, and each can be used effectively. The two drivers that should dictate your preference are projected ad budget (and likely marketing channel), and how variable your business model is. The more abstract your brand name is, the more you will likely spend on advertising. The more descriptive your name is, the less flexibility you have to adjust your business model under that brand.

Consider three examples from the online job posting arena: Monster.com, TheLadders.com, and CareerBuilder.com. Three different styles of names, all for pretty much the same business.

Monster.com is the most abstract of the names. It doesn’t say anything about employment or personal development (the functional side of the business) nor does it say anything about efficiency or multiplicity of listings (the benefit side of the business). The upside of being so abstract is the company can adjust its business model over time: The brand “Monster” could offer relocation services just as easily as it could offer job hunting services. Furthermore, the name really stands out from the crowd. The downside? Names like this require a more substantial ad budget to make them stick. This company has bought television ad time during the Superbowl, and they constantly have to remind people what service they provide.

TheLadders.com is a more suggestive brand name. Still says nothing about job listings, but the key benefit of the service (climbing up the corporate ladder) is clearly communicated. While this name doesn’t afford quite as much flexibility for the business, it still gives a lot of room to maneuver. And the name stands out without being so abstract that they need to spend a gazillion dollars promoting it.

CareerBuilder.com is the most descriptive name of the three. This name clearly communicates its function: helping you build your career. Easy to promote in any channel (radio, tv, print, online) and easily understood by a wide audience. What this name lacks is charisma; it’s kind of boring (a common affliction of more descriptive names). Perhaps because these guys are competing with the likes of Monster and TheLadders, they too have spent quite a bit on their ad campaigns (including one of my favorite Superbowl commercials of all time).

One final question for readers: is it more important for a name to stand out (a la Monster) or for a name to be intuitive (a la CareerBuilder)?

Burt Alper, Catchword Branding

Is Competitor Brand Targeting Right or Wrong?

Time and time again we have had a client bring up the fact that one or more of their competitors is bidding on our client's trademarked or company-oriented keywords on the search engines. When this happens to our clients they cry fowl and often run to us with the question, can my competitors bid on my trademarked terms or name? Google says yes and no.

Yes, you can bid on another company's trademarked terms. After all, these are ads. If you're standing in an aisle at a store, you may see POP displays or store banners or coupons urging you to purchase one brand over another. Isn't this the same thing? As long as the ad or promotion does not convey anything negative about your competitor and does not mention the trademarked terms then it is okay.

Google's stance is that it wants you to have content on your site (within two clicks) that pertains to the keywords you are bidding on. They give you "credit", if you will, for having applicable content. If you don't have relevant content, the clicks get very expensive. Google does not see the value for the user - an ad pointing to a page that does not have content related to the ad is misleading to the user.

And no. Google has earmarked certain trademarked names as non-touchable by competitors.

This is an ongoing topic for discussion, especially after the American Airlines trademark cases. Some folks argue that you should be able to bid on a competitor's trademarked or branded keyword terms because these are ads. Others say, no, what is the use of a trademarked term if it is not enforceable? Even the search engines' views vary. Google says yes, in certain situations. MSN says yes but only if it is within their guidelines and does not infringe on a third party's trademark or rights. Yahoo says only if you are one of two types of sites - a reseller of the trademarked product/service or an informative site - but definitely not a competitor.

Where do you stand on targeting a competitor's brand within your PPC campaign?

—Ted Risdall, Risdall Marketing

Brand Happy?

I was reading a piece my partner, Mike, wrote a little while ago titled, "Are you brand happy?" It reminded me that as the world continues to become more and more complex and intertwined with the rapid explosion of social media, the importance of this simple question increases considerably.

It’s never been easier, or harder to tell your story. This is where being “brand happy” comes into play. (Brand happy, the state of branding everything you touch.)

To have highly effective communications these days, everyone has to be on the same page. Your audience needs to clearly understand your message and know that you deliver on your brand promise. Keep in mind that a brand is a customer's gut feel about your product, service or company; it’s what they say it is vs. what you say it is.

That’s why the decision on what to brand is such an important one. The number of brands you choose to build will have a significant and lasting impact in your business for years to come.

Now, what happens if Web addresses could end with anything including your brand name. Imagine the complexity that would bring to the protection of your branded name(s). Well that’s going to happen too. Check out http://usat.me/?34687748.

It is time to really start thinking about what is worth protecting. One simple test is to see if your internal people can keep all of your brand names and trademarks straight. If they can’t, I assure you that neither can your audience. As mind share becomes harder to find, market share harder to get and trademark protection harder to ensure I think all of us need to ask if we’re brand happy.

Bob Freytag, President @ Introworks

Understanding the Critical Role of the "Brand" in Product Packaging

Building a packaging brand seems simple at the outset. The only problem is you have to understand what the consumer wants and expects in their product packaging. That consumer is on the move too. They are time crunched, overworked and overwhelmed with information and even worse you have only 2.6 seconds to convince them to pick up your product for a closer look. So how can you "connect your message" with the consumer?

The package has an immense role to play. Besides transporting, protecting and keeping your product secure consider what other things the package is doing simultaneously: educating about what's inside or how to use the product, helping the consumer to make an informed purchasing decision, making it convenient and easier for the customer to use, providing a sense product integrity and trust in your brand. Heard enough? Can your package meet these criteria?

It's the emotional connection that builds today's brands. How you make that connection is what separates successful brands from those that fail to make the grade. The package needs to "engage" the consumer by clearly stating value, benefits and reasons why a consumer should make the purchase. How will purchasing the product make someone's life easier? How easy or convenient is it to use? How does it mesh with the consumer’s lifestyle? And most importantly, what's in it for the consumer once they make the purchase?

So what constitutes compelling packaging brand? How "connected" are you to your consumer? Here are a few emotional descriptors that your packaging must convey. Does your packaging Engage, Evoke, and Engross the consumer?

Continue Reading...

Potty Mouth Marketing: 6 Reasons Why Vulgar Language is the Curse of Your Brand

I don’t know about you, but I am fed up with all of the vulgar book titles, song titles, and TV show names. You might say I am p*ssed off or I think that this type of vulgarity s*cks, but then I would be playing right back into these authors’ hands.

If you know me, I am far from easily offended and have been known to curse with the best of the bunch, but I try to keep it private. And, if I do curse in front of my son, the $.25 fine per instance quickly adds up.

No, what I am talking about are books such as Your Marketing Sucks, or If Women Ruled the World, Sh*T would Get Done, Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life or Kick Ass Copywriting. These are business books written by authors who ostensibly want to be viewed as experts, sell a boatload of books, get paid to speak, and sell other products and services. My take? I think these brand names will backfire and here are my reasons:

  1. It’s a Cheap Attention-Getter – Creating a title with a curse word is as if announcing to the world, “I couldn’t think of any other way to bring attention to my book so I just threw in a four-letter word.” Yikes! And, now, these books no longer stand out because the ploy has been copied too often.
  2. Your Email Will Hit the Spam Filter – I have enough issues trying to ensure that my email and newsletters make it through tough spam filters, and I don’t have any bad words. Imagine how hard it is to ensure that every email that has your book title on it were blocked? Virtually no recipients would ever get your message.
  3. The Media Might Hesitate – Publishing a book is literally like a tree falling in the forest; no one hears about it unless you make a ton of noise. With a funky title, certain family friendly channels, networks, and time slots might quickly take a pass on your interview or book review. Of course, the gamble is that the outrageous title will make up for the lack of official press appearances, but I wouldn’t take that bet.
  4. Your Speaking Gig Potential is Diminished – As the author of DUH! Marketing, I had to correct the perception that I insulted my audience; I can only imagine a meeting planner’s reluctance to book a speaker whose book already contains a four-letter word. Meeting planners are notoriously risk averse; they will not risk their reputation on booking you if they fear you will pepper your talk with foul language.
  5. Corporate America Might Turn Its Back –Authors often speak of consulting as the Holy Grail of Publishing: the secret weapon that opens the door that might otherwise remain locked. With businesses suffering body blows from this economy and purse strings severely tightened, it will be hard to pass the due diligence review with a foul word in your brand name.
  6. It Limits Brand Extensions – Great authors think not only about their current title, but how to successively name the entire series so that it’s clear that all of the books belong to them. Examples include Chicken Soup for the Soul, Jeffrey Gitomer’s color-named series, Little Red Book of Selling, and Little Gold Book of Yes Attitude, and Sue Grafton’s alphabetically named series: A is for Alibi, B is For Burglar, etc. If, after publishing your first book with a vulgar-named title you decide to depart from that strategy, how do you name the second book so that it fits under your brand? The answer: it is extremely difficult. 
     

My advice? Think long and hard about creating your brand. Naming is to branding as location is to real estate; it is the essential foundation you need to build an empire.

Liz Goodgold, Red Fire Branding

A Mother of an Opportunity

Was your mom a multiple serial monogamist? Then bring back those memories of daddy-for-a-day with “Gentlemen Callers,” a new scented candle featuring “a sensual orgy of men’s colognes.”

Sounds like an ad from The Onion, but it’s not. You can buy “Gentlemen Callers” and several other candles from Mother, a New York company that also sells comics, shopping bags and refrigerator magnets.

The thing is, Mother isn’t in the candle business, or the comics business, or the magnet business. It’s in the advertising business – a feisty, independent agency renowned for its creativity.

Now Mother is putting that creativity to use not just on behalf of its clients, but on behalf of itself. Check out Mother Scented Candles here, as well as this very funny 90-second product video.

Creative firms like Mother, and Fast Horse for that matter, typically have been like the shoemakers’ children: great at marketing on behalf of their clients, yet lousy at doing the same for themselves. But that’s changing as a growing number of advertising and marketing agencies are beginning to use their brand-building knowledge to create new revenue streams for themselves:

  • The Vancouver agency Taxi opened Taxi Café, selling Taxi-branded fair trade coffee and snacks.
  • Brooklyn Brothers of New York wrote and published a children’s book, “Gently Elephant!” and created a line of chocolates, Fat Pig.
  • Anomaly in New York created i/denti/tee, an e-commerce play that lets customers emblazon T-shirts with their favorite song lyrics.

Anomaly and other agencies also regularly partner with clients, taking partial ownership of a product or a cut of profits in lieu of regular fees. For example, Anomaly recently partnered with Target on Eos, a line of women’s shaving and skin products that launched in more than 100 Target stores.

I expect to see this trend explode in the coming years, as the Internet has leveled the playing field and agencies are looking to apply what they know to create new streams of revenue. And as this becomes more commonplace in the agency world, liberal arts majors like me would do well to get better versed in sexy stuff like trademarks and intellectual property.

Anyone got a line on some good counsel in this area?

-Jorg Pierach, Fast Horse

Branded, Outlaw Style: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

Thank you, Mr. Eastwood, for all that you continue to do.

Don’t worry, this isn’t the typical, mundane comparison between branding cattle and branding your next product. We can all agree; that metaphor has had its time. No, this is about the importance of the number three, the triad. Much of our scientific, mathematical, political and art world draws from the balance of three. There are many ways to apply three, and in this case, we are simply using three examples of brands in our world, one good, one bad, one ugly.

The Good: It’s hard not to mention Apple when talking about a brand. It may seem like Apple and their identity elements are clean and pristine, but Apple has made history by rebellious behavior and spitting in the face of convention. Is it larger than Steve Jobs? It can be challenging to take on an outlaw persona if it doesn’t come naturally. It isn’t something an organization enjoys, it is often something forced upon it. Just the word, “organization,” goes against the typical outlaw behaviors. Has this organization adopted Job’s rebellious attitude? Has Apple identified a person with the natural outlaw persona? In a recent conversation with a recent past employee of Apple, this individual indicated the team inside has taken on Job’s brand and will carry forward the anti-establishment approach that has brought admiration from both Wall Street and Main Street. We, at Capsule, hope so.

The Bad: From one outlaw to another, Harley-Davidson. Another of our world’s most coveted brands. If you don’t know the history (brink of bankruptcy, many bikes in disrepair and a few loyalists revitalizing it) buy the book. The word “bad,” as we know it, can mean something good, in this case something oh so good. This is a great example for Apple to consider when wondering if the legacy will continue. Who can we thank for such great work on this brand? The ad agency? The management team? The media? They all had a role, but the lead goes to the loyal Harley rider. This rider has the role of “Grand Brand Manager,” and they speak up when something is right and scream when wrong. The lesson for Apple—listen to those who covet you—they will make sure you’re staying in line by ignoring the conventional line altogether.

The Ugly: Those of you who abuse intellectual property, either by ignorance or by deliberate thievery. Consequences will be there, in time. We have actually had people come to our office and say, “yeah, I really liked the work you did for that client, so I copied it, or rather it was my inspiration.” Well, your inspiration was our perspiration. We work hard to design unique, memorable and valuable ideas for our clients. For those of you who hook your wagon onto our tractor, just be sure to know what laws you may be breaking, because it may be a bumpy ride behind the Capsule tractor.

This ugly example “watch for” is my inspiration for this post. It came across my e-mail just the other day, infringing on Harley-Davidson and not even doing it in an impressive manner. If you’re going to break the law, at least do it with style. Maybe, then, you can avoid the tattoo “stupid and ugly” and just get “ugly.”

Aaron Keller, Capsule

Squirrels Know A Lot About Protecting Their Nuts

Meet Duey, the squirrel.  Protector of essential assets. He came to life in a conversation about the wonderful nuggets of creativity we find [when we’re lucky] and those who spend their career protecting these organizational assets. Stephen Baird is the ever-present Intellectual Property attorney with a special affection for Trademarks – he and his creative team of Intellectuals are ever resourceful for their clients.

But enough about them. Let’s get back to Duey B. Lichtenstein, the squirrel.

As a member of the team, Duey goes to work for his clients, finding hidden treasures and managing the process required to take them back to the nook for protection and leverage.  Duey is well aware of the fact that many lawyers are referred to as a darker part of the human anatomy. In spite of this, he has chosen to rise above and make this profession professional.

Duey was institutionally educated in a place for higher learning [translation: tall tree]. He is ever diligent in his searches, helping client after client find their way to a better asset. He doesn’t treat his search lightly, and when a nut is found, he is true to his calling.  While “persistent” may not be his middle name, it will certainly be on his gravestone.

He’s also well aware of the fact that there are few law firms in the world willing to take him on as a member of the animal kingdom. And without opposable thumbs, he has to rely heavily on dictation. And no vermin jokes, please.

Duey B. Lichtenstein, protector of brands, alter-ego of DuetsBlog, and humorist in the halls of W&W.

Aaron Keller, Capsule