This got me thinking about juxtapositions of brands in advertisements.  One common brand juxtaposition is to use a celebrity in an ad campaign.  Sometimes they are harmonious (e.g. Rolex and Nadal or Federer), sometimes they don’t make much sense (e.g. Ann Taylor and Kate Hudson – sorry not a fan), and sometimes they lead the consumer into an unintended brand association.  Earlier this week, I saw an advertisement for a beverage that featured a country music group with a female member juxtaposed with the following line:  “just the way nature intended.”  My well-trained ears perked up at that line.  Regardless of whether you are a country music aficionado, you’ve probably heard the story of the country music group with a female member whose stage tragically collapsed in a terrible storm last summer in an “act of God.”   Based on the line “just the way nature intended” and my inability to distinguish the two country music groups, I immediately drew a negative inference – even though the group featured in the ad was not the group involved in the accident.  Sometimes brand juxtapositions have unintended associations.  You can only control your own brand, and it’s important to consider how connecting another’s brand with your brand and your message may affect the relevant consuming public’s reaction.

Häagen-Dazs. Mmmmm. Just the thought of their ice cream makes me feel good. And I know it will taste good because it was born in Scandinavia, right?

Then I learned the brand history. I must say I was disappointed. Häagen-Dazs was born in the Bronx, New York in 1961. Its creators were not Scandinavians but rather two Polish immigrants, Reuben and Rose Mattus. Their first retail store opened in Brooklyn in 1976, and today Häagen-Dazs is sold in 55 countries around the world.

Why did they choose the name Häagen-Dazs? The name was created to look Scandinavian for Americans. This European cachet radiates craftsmanship, tradition, and wholesomeness, thereby justifying the higher price. On early labels they used an outline of Denmark, even though the umlaut is not used in the Danish language.

As Häagen-Dazs succeeded, the copycats emerged. American Richard Smith created Frusen Glädjé using an “almost Swedish” name (without the accent on the final e the word means “frozen joy” or “frozen delight”). Häagen-Dazs actually tried to sue Frusen Glädjé to prevent them from using a Scandinavian marketing theme (thereby demonstrating a new level of audacity).

The umlaut parade continued with the launch of Yogen Früz, a frozen yogurt, and Freshëns frozen yogurt’s “Smoöthies.”

This “foreign branding” implies a superior heritage where none exists, which represents inauthentic branding at its best.

Let’s consider another ice cream brand, Ben & Jerry’s. Go to their website and read their company history.  It’s a scrapbook! And you can see pictures of Ben and Jerry. And you can learn about this remarkable company who has remained true to its roots.

Ben & Jerry’s = AUTHENTIC BRANDING. Häagen-Dazs…not so much.

Multiple meanings because I suspect there may be a generational divide on the obvious Starsky and Hutch brand reference (trademark data of owner Columbia Pictures can be found here, here, and here). I further suspect that the generational divide makes the reference all that more attractive given its wider scope and reach.

For baby boomers this billboard probably calls to mind the original 70s television cop series featuring Paul Michael Glaser as David Starsky and David Soul as Kenneth “Hutch” Hutchinson:

And, let’s not forget about Huggy Bear — the police snitch who loved the phrase Jive Turkey. What I had forgotten about the series is that David Soul’s character, Hutch, was the “quiet, intellectual Minnesotan,” in constrast to Paul Michael Glaser’s Starsky character, the “streetwise Brooklyn native.” So, the Minnesota-based furniture seller may be playing on that connection too.

However, non-baby-boomer furniture shoppers probably have these images in mind, along with Owen Wilson (as Hutch), Ben Stiller (as Starsky), and Snoop Dogg (as Huggy Bear):

Now, I seriously doubt that Schneiderman’s average consumer is expecting to meet David Soul or Owen Wilson on their next shopping visit, given the billboard’s “plenty of Hutch” reference, but then again, let’s not forget that the Lanham Act protects the “least sophisticated potential consumer” under the likelihood of confusion test of trademark infringement.

Our very own Susan Perera is a brand new mom, so a very special celebration for you Susan!

We have been following Rapala billboard ads for the last several years, right around the time of the fishing opener (and Mother’s Day), and the 2012 edition is shown above and to the left.

I’ll have to say, I’m not very moved by Rapala this year, past years were far more creative in my opinion:

Rapala Taunts a Monster?

Good Bye Google, Hello Whudjagiddumon?

Rapala’s More Hits Than Google Billboard

Rapala Fishing Lures: More Hits Than Google? Or, More Cats Than You Can Shake a Stick At?

Which one is your favorite?

With a tip of the cap to Mark Shea, the sheer emptiness of this tagline has never occurred to me before.  It has always registered in my mind as a promise of sorts that Geico’s rates are on average fifteen percent cheaper than those of other insurers.  Obviously, when you look at it, it is no such thing.  It is a highly specific non-commitment.  The specifics of “fifteen minutes, fifteen percent” have always lodged in my brain, but not the lack of commitment that I “could” save.  Well, I could not save, too.  Very clever.

The more widespread approach to avoiding false advertising liability seems to be to avoid specifics.  Here in the upper midwest, the classic example is the home improvement store Menards.  Menards’ tagline is “save big money,” which it relentlessly repeats in its jingle (example here).  Steve has commented before both on “Save Big” promises and the Menards jingle here.  Interestingly, the jingle does commit, “you’ll save big money when you shop Menards,” but “big money” is a relative, non-specific thing.  Another example is Wal-Mart’s “always low prices.”  Also a non-specific, unmeasurable commitment.

The Geico approach of specific non-commitment has its limits.  What if Geico said, “fifteen minutes could save you fifty percent or more”?  The magnitude of a fifty percent savings highlights the issue: if it could be proved that no customer has ever saved that much, then the claim is probably misleading, if not false. (Or is it?  Just because no customer has ever saved that much does not mean that no customer ever could. Nevermind the difficulties in trying to prove the matter, which would almost certainly have to be a detailed statistical analysis.) My guess is that many Geico customers have saved “fifteen percent or more,” so the claim that you could save that too is probably neither false nor misleading. So go ahead, you could save.

Exposure, in my opinion, has never been a bad thing. But I’m curious, does product placement make an impact on product sales? Maybe it’s just because I’m a marketer by trade that I am not swayed by these placements (or, maybe I am and just don’t know it). I’m pretty much set on which pop I drink and clothing I purchase, but what about the rest of the world?

Interestingly, I came upon this article on CNBC listing the primetime shows with the most product placements in 2011. Is it a coincidence that the majority of the shows are “reality”? Why do you think reality shows have the most product placements?

The counterfeiters registered at least 34 domain names, including several with the word Hermès along with its bag names: Birkin and Kelly.  Hermès sells two handbags named after famous actresses.  The Birkin bag was named after actress and singer Jane Birkin.  I saw an episode of “Sex and the City” this weekend where Samantha was fired for using her client’s name (Lucy Liu) to go to the head of a list with a two year wait to obtain the coveted bag.  The Kelly bag was coined after actress and Princess of Monaco Grace Kelly covered her pregnant stomach with a Hermès bag.  These bags sell from $6,000 to $150,000.

When the defendants failed to answer the complaint filed by Hermès, the court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction.  In addition to trademark counterfeiting, infringement and dilution, the court also entered judgment on the cybersquatting claim.  Cybersquatting involves registering or using a domain name with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of another’s trademark.  In other words, the defendants were selling knock-off products through these domain names.  The court’s order also provides that upon receiving notice Internet search engines (e.g., Google) and social media websites (e.g., Facebook) are required to de-index and remove infringing domain names and websites from any search results pages.  This type of relief will likely be requested more frequently by litigants with Internet shopping’s growing popularity.

Other fashion designers have, and will continue to, enforce their trademark rights and work to shut down counterfeiters.  Indeed, there is another counterfeit handbag battle pending before the Second Circuit.  Fendi Adele SRL (“Fendi”) is arguing that it can obtain enhanced damages from an alleged counterfeit merchandise seller’s conduct without showing that the conduct was willful.  This battle (going back to 2006) is a topic for a blog post on another day.

Take the example to the right, an ad for EagleBank, a community bank operating in the Washington, D.C. area.

While mingling with more than 9,000 other trademark lawyers from around the world who have descended upon the Washington, D.C. area for the International Trademark Association’s annual meeting, I noticed an EagleBank ad in one of the Metro stations, sporting the tagline “We’re listening” — positioned directly beneath the EagleBank name and logo.

My first thought was, I’ve heard about “eagle eyes” and the superior vision of eagles, but I’ve never associated eagles with exceptional hearing, much less listening skills.

Believe me, after nearly twenty-five years of marriage, trust me, I do know the difference between listening and hearing, but I think even my wife would agree hearing is a prerequisite to listening, so I’ll continue along this line of thought without skipping another beat.

So, as it appears, I’m not the only one who has wondered about the hearing prowess of the national bird, and as it turns out, eagles hear no better than humans. Since eagles are not renown for their hearing, but they are distinguished by their incredible sight, why associate tagline messaging around ears when the bird having exceptional sight is at the core of the brand’s name?

There actually is a phrase known as “eagle ears” — unfortunately for EagleBank, it means: “Someone who claims they can hear everything but cannot.” Ouch, how’s that for a dose of (presumably) unintended irony?

Earlier today Mark Prus wrote about the importance of checking for unintended and inappropriate meanings of brand names in foreign languages — I’m thinking that checking the Urban Dictionary for slang meanings might be as important too.

Interestingly, EagleBank’s website sports a different tagline: “Focused on You.” And, without a doubt, this tagline seems much more compatible with the EagleBank brand name.

Perhaps D*MNGOOD, the creative agency of record for EagleBank, is actually that, and noticed the need to bring some consistency between the brand name and tagline, but they’re still working through the old print media?

What do you think, how important is it for a brand name and the associated tagline to work together and avoid unintended irony?

Naming contests. Sounds like a good idea, right? A company needs a new name and it decides to engage its employees to come up with a new name. What could go wrong?

Well, you could end up with a name like Mondelez.

Just to be clear, I’m a professional name developer, so you might think I am against naming contests because they take dollars out of my wallet. Not true. If you are a small 5 person startup, by all means “talk amongst yourselves” and figure out your name. Chances are you will do a good enough job if you follow some basic rules. I’ll even give you some free advice! And the big company that buys you someday will likely change your name anyway.

But if you are a billion dollar global company, holding an employee naming contest is just about the dumbest thing you can do. And yet, that is what Kraft Foods did to identify a new name for its Snack Division. Mondelez International will be the corporate home for existing brands like Oreo, Cadbury, Nabisco and Trident. Kraft said in a statement that the new name — pronounced “mohn-dah-LEEZ” — comes from a combination of the words “monde,” derived from the Latin for “world,” and “deliz,” short for “delicious.”

I am sure Kraft used the following rationale to sell the idea of a naming contest internally (remember, I was a corporate insider for 25 years so I’ve heard this stuff before):

1. Holding a naming contest will engage our valuable employees – No it won’t. Kraft said they received over 1700 names from their 1200 employees which is slightly more than one per employee. Typically in naming contests you get a few diehards who submit hundreds of names and the other “99 percent” of people ignore it. I’m willing to bet this happened in this case.
2. Because the name came from within, our employees will rally behind it – Chances are, the only people who think “Mondelez” is a wonderful name are the two employees who came up with it. The other 1198 employees hate it and think other names were better. One of the other suggested names was “Tfark” and I am pretty sure the person who thought of that still thinks it was a better name than Mondelez.
3. Nothing says “our Management cares about employees” like holding a naming contest – Actually, I am pretty sure a 10% raise would make everyone feel better than holding a naming contest. The act of holding a naming contest is a sad attempt to demonstrate that Management cares about what the employees think.
4. Hey, Google came up with its own name and it worked out OK! OK, it is hard to disagree with this rationale and Google is a lot better than their working name for their search engine, which was “BackRub.” But if Google were looking for a new name for their company today, do you think they would hold an employee naming contest? I doubt it.

Developing a great name is hard work. Sometimes you get a stroke of genius (like Apple), and sometimes you spend weeks trying to get to the right combination of creativity, emotional impact, consumer understanding, branding/marketing potential, etc. Done properly, a great name will reflect a clear strategic positioning, a deep consumer understanding, and an ability for the consumer to “get it” without explanation. This is a pretty tall list for the average employee to consider.

There is also a lengthy process involved in checking and validating the name availability. On a typical name development project, I spend hours evaluating the availability of trademarks (working with a trademark attorney), domain names, common law usage and “native language checks” (to ensure a name like Mondelez does not mean something inappropriate in a foreign language). Apparently someone at Kraft forgot to do the latter, as I hear Mondelez has an inappropriate sexual connotation in Russian.

In this instance, I can point to the end result and thank Kraft for making my blogging life easier.

I have a general rule about names. The more you have to explain the name, the worse the name is. Kraft knows this is a lousy name because their explanation is lengthy and contrived. Sorry, Kraft—you could have done so much better. This name change still has to be approved by shareholders on May 23rd. Let’s hope they have more sense than the people who decided to hold a naming contest!

How have we all been duped for so long?  According to the author of the Forbes article, its becaue Kobe is not protectected as a trademark or otherwise regulated by U.S. law; accordingly, restaurants and grocery stores can simply stick it on the label with no consequences.  With due respect to the author, I disagree.

Trademark law has a policy of avoiding “geographically misdescriptive” marks.  Such marks are not eligible for registration and potentially could give rise to a false advertising claim.  This whole fiasco calls to mind a case from the 1960′s where the a court considered whether or not a defendant could call its cheese “Roquefort” cheese even though the cheese did not come from the Community of Roquefort in France.  Granted, the Roquefort case involved slightly different legal issues, as the Community of Roquefort had registered a certification mark in the United States.  Certification marks typically mean that someone has confirmed that the product is genuine.  So, in the case of cheese, for example, the Roquefort mark certifies that the cheese actually comes from Roquefort, France.

Here, it does not appear that Kobe has not been registered as a certifiction mark in the U.S., and this is unsurprising given the fact that the genuine article does not seem to be sold in the U.S.  However, there are plenty of Kobe beef imitator marks that have been registered and would appear to be geographically misdescriptive of the goods provided.  I, for one, feel deceived.  How about you?