Goodwill Hunting?

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Guest Blogger

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® 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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.

Brand Signals: The Building Blocks of Brand Identity

Posted on January 19, 2010 by Guest Blogger

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®. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Roar of Tiger Woods in Branding

Posted on January 12, 2010 by Guest Blogger

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.

Each of the brands that employed Woods was placed in an undesirable predicament. This was not a situation where there was one right answer. Each of the brands had to consider how Woods as an endorser fit into their marketing communication strategy. Because each of the brands approached the situation from a different perspective, that is why there were a number of different reactions to the situation. I don't think any brand has made the wrong decision yet in evaluating Woods’ future viability as an endorser.

Nike has made the decision to stay with Woods for the time being. Nike President Phil Knight is choosing to take the long view, as he believes that this incident will be a “minor blip” in the career of Tiger Woods. I fully support Nike's wait and see approach with Woods. Nike took that approach when Kobe Bryant endured consequences for his extramarital affair in 2003-04. Kobe Bryant's situation was more severe, as criminal charges were filed. Eventually, charges were dropped. At that point, Nike and Kobe Bryant resumed their relationship. Nike has shown over time that only athletic performance matters for the most part. From their perspective, off the field issues are relevant when an athlete is convicted of criminal behavior.

Nike has a huge commitment to Woods. Before Woods, Nike’s involvement in golf was extremely limited. Nike Golf has tied itself to Tiger Woods, and Nike is a brand that is defined by excellent athletic performance. Nothing about Woods’ behavior has changed the fact that he is one of the greatest golfers ever. 

Gillette and Tag Heuer made decisions to pull Woods from their advertising campaigns. Neither company has officially dropped him, but both (see here and here) chose to indefinitely suspend him. Both were initially attracted to Woods due to his winning performances on the golf course and they felt that their target consumers perceived that he had a charismatic personality that would benefit the brands. Due to the fact that athletic performance was not the sole reason for Woods’ presence, they wanted to wait and see how this situation would play out. However, they didn’t want to associate with him in the near term, for fear that his presence could damage brand equity.

Gatorade dropped Woods, but PepsiCo said the decision was made before the scandal broke. Gatorade has had a lot of branding problems in the last few years (see here and here). They have much bigger problems than Woods' recent behavior.

Accenture and AT&T both severed relationships with Woods (see here and here). Accenture's decision to drop Woods is unique in the domain of athlete endorsement. Companies will usually not terminate deals unless criminal charges are filed. Companies are prepared for behavioral contingencies, as most endorsement deals have a "morals clause". The "morals clause" likely helped Accenture escape the contract. Accenture strongly tied itself to Woods, a strategic decision that has to be questioned. Tiger Woods doesn’t have expertise in aspects of management consulting, a primary function of Accenture’s business. They also based their ad campaign around the slogan, “Be A Tiger”. "Be A Tiger" doesn't bring up as many positive connotations as it once did. As for AT&T, they dropped him, giving no indication that there will be a future celebrity product endorsement relationship. The AT&T logo is highly visible on Woods’ golf bag and they also sponsor the Tiger Woods Golf Tournament. AT&T is not primarily attracted to Woods the athlete, so it was a simple decision to let him go.

The second perspective of Tiger Woods concerns Woods’ ability to earn money in the future as an endorser. The events of November & December 2009 turned Tiger Woods from an ordinary, albeit highly talented golfer into a Mike Tyson-esque side show. Very few celebrities have fallen as far and as fast of Woods. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Woods didn’t do anything illegal. Extramarital affairs are commonplace. As a result, the Tiger Woods brand will survive as long as he remains one of the best golfers on the planet.

A good precedent for the current situation with Tiger Woods is Kobe Bryant. In 2003, Kobe Bryant had an extramarital affair and sexual assault charges were filed. In 2004, those charges were dropped. Kobe Bryant has been able to secure endorsement deals in the ensuing years. However, Bryant has not been seen endorsing McDonald's and Sprite, brands that are intended for wider audiences. I ultimately believe that Woods will remain a valued pitchman for brands where only athletic performance matters. Brands that take into account personal behavior will shy away from him for the foreseeable future.

Woods’ recent behavior has gotten him one job offer. Movie director Todd Phillips, best known for directing “Road Trip”, “Old School” and “The Hangover”, has offered Woods a role in “The Hangover 2”. This makes the aforementioned comparison with Mike Tyson even more apt, because Mike Tyson had a hilarious cameo in “The Hangover”. Also, an actual tiger played an important role in the plot development of “The Hangover”. However, I don’t believe that Woods will accept Phillips’ gracious offer. He and his PR team probably do not believe that “The Hangover 2” is an appropriate venue for image rehabilitation.

The steps that Tiger Woods takes to rehabilitate his personal image will determine how successful he will be in luring companies to pay him to endorse branded products. I believe that image rehabilitation is certainly a realistic goal. Other celebrities have bounced back from more devastating circumstances. Kobe Bryant went from having sexual assault charges filed against him as a result of an extramarital affair to earning $16 million in endorsements in 2007. Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis pled guilty to obstruction of justice in a murder investigation and was able to secure endorsements after his plea agreement. The common thread between Bryant and Lewis is that they continued to be among the best players in their respective sports. If Tiger Woods remains a dominant golfer after his self imposed hiatus and he is able to downplay stories about his life off the golf course, he will receive lucrative endorsement deals in time. The roar of Tiger Woods will continue to be heard in the branding universe.

—David Mitchel, Norton Mitchel Marketing
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

G Doesn't Grasp Successful Marketing

Posted on January 5, 2010 by Guest Blogger

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.

I commend Gatorade for shifting their philosophy in 2010. In 2010, they will redefine their target consumer. Their 2010 efforts will focus on the serious athlete that desires peak athletic performance. This is closely aligned with their origins. For many years, Gatorade has tried to widen their audience, and not succeeded. It is very difficult to be all things to all people, and a laser focus on a specific group of people is a strong strategic approach.

The best decision that Gatorade made for 2010 is to remove high fructose corn syrup from all of their products. A few years ago, Gatorade changed the sweetener from sugar to high fructose corn syrup. The nutrition value (or lack thereof) of high fructose corn syrup has been intensely debated in recent years (here, here and here). 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, particularly when your target consumer is athletic and health conscious. This move gives Gatorade a competitive advantage over chief category rival Powerade. High fructose corn syrup is an ingredient in Powerade products other than Powerade Zero (low calorie version). It also falls in line with the Coca-Cola model of returning a product to the original formula.

Gatorade is planning to revamp their packaging, for both G and the lower calorie G2. Packaging was a key reason why Gatorade struggled in 2009. Consumers did not recognize the nebulous “G” packaging and had no perceptions of the meaning of the “G” brand. The decision to redevelop the packaging is correct. The execution is likely to be a failure. Recently, PepsiCo has redesigned the packaging on the Pepsi line of products and Tropicana. Both redesigns were poorly conceived and executed. There was such a strong backlash against the Tropicana redesign that PepsiCo quickly reverted back to the old packaging. With regards to Gatorade, the only acceptable package redesign is a reversion to classic Gatorade packaging. If the packaging does not resemble classic Gatorade packaging, they will be wasting time and money.

The worst aspect of Gatorade’s 2010 marketing strategy is the expansion of the product line. A product line extension should accomplish at least 1 of the following 2 things: expand the size of the market and/or expand the number of a brand’s product offerings that a given consumer purchases. Gatorade’s line extension will not accomplish either.  By adding the “Prime” and “Recover” beverages to the existing product line (G and G2), Gatorade now has at least 4 distinct segments of their product line. It is bound to cause consumer confusion.  Generally speaking, it is difficult for consumers to perceive how the brand’s multitude of products is going to benefit them. Because of this confusion, consumers are more likely to choose a simpler alternative. This strategic problem is augmented by the current economic climate. Asking the target consumer to adopt product line extensions in the worst recession since the Great Depression is a recipe for disaster. Through this decision, Gatorade is showing how out-of-touch they are with their target consumer.

Gatorade’s stubborn refusal to return to its roots and provide simplicity in its branding strategy will continue to damage brand equity and negatively impact revenue. In the first four decades of its history, Gatorade had all of the makings of an iconic brand. The product was consistent, as well as the overall themes of the marketing communication messages. Consumers perceived the brand as valuable in its category. This is similar to iconic brands such as McDonald’s, Nike, Budweiser, BMW and Crest. Coca-Cola also fits this description, with the exception of a period of temporary insanity in the mid 1980s. Coca-Cola remains the best precedent for Gatorade, but Gatorade continues to reject their methodology in restoring a classic brand after an ill-conceived revitalization.

—David Mitchel, Norton Mitchel Marketing
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Merger of Two Great Cities

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Guest Blogger

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Naming the Store Brand

Posted on November 7, 2009 by Guest Blogger

         

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).

                                     

At Rite Aid, you almost have to be a pharmacist to get the right brand. The first branded product to go generic was Benadryl and Rite Aid called the knockoff Rite Aid Allergy Medication. When the next generation allergy drugs went generic, Rite Aid had to improvise and so now you need to know the active ingredient to get the right brand (Rite Aid Loratidine and Rite Aid Cetirizine for Claritin and Zyrtec respectively). 

How about gastrointestinal products? Looking at four big brands, Zantac®, Metamucil®, Pepto-Bismol®, and MiraLAX®, and their knockoff brands at the drug chains show inconsistency at all three chains:

Branded: Zantac; Metamucil; Pepto-Bismol; MiraLAX

Walgreens: Wal-Zan; Wal-Mucil; Soothe; SmoothLAX

CVS: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber Laxative; Stomach Relief; PureLAX

Rite Aid: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber; Pink Bismuth; Laxative

So what is going on here? Walgreens, which appeared to be building the “Wal-“ prefix as its store brand champion, seems to have abandoned that philosophy in some parts of the store. CVS, which had been focusing on product benefits, gets dragged down into generic category descriptors in gastrointestinals. And Rite Aid is all over the place.

Doesn’t anyone worry about having a consistent branding strategy for the store brand? It sure would make life easier for us confused consumers! Hey Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid…do you need some naming help?

- Mark Prus, NameFlashSM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Twitter® "Following" Kool-Aid®, Mickey Mouse®, and Spam®?

Posted on August 3, 2009 by Steve Baird

twitterrificDownload-Spam Logo-

What does Twitter have in common with Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam? Maybe nothing, at least yet, but I predict that it will soon, unless Twitter retains some talented PR help in a hurry. Why?

The Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam brands all have spawned secondary or alternate and negative non-trademark meanings that have become part of the English language, meanings in each case that lack positive brand associations, to say the least. If Twitter is not careful it will find itself "following" the likes of Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam, and be in the similar undesirable position of tolerating language changes that distract from their brands and favorable brand messages, to be left watching others make generic use of their brand names to communicate a variety of ideas and meanings that are neither flattering nor brand building.

Kool-Aid "is a brand of artificially-flavored drink mix owned by the Kraft Foods Company," coined by inventor Edwin Perkins as "Kool-Ade" back in 1927. After being correctly or incorrectly associated with the 1978 Jim Jones cult-driven mass suicide known as the Jonestown Massacre, Kool-Aid has spawned an additional and negative non-trademark meaning:

"The saying 'Do not drink the Kool-Aid' now commonly refers to the Jonestown tragedy, meaning 'Do not trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side,' or 'Whatever they tell you, do not believe it too strongly.' Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly is famous for using the term in this manner."

"Having 'drunk the Kool-Aid' also refers to being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission — wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues." So, based on these alternate and negative meanings, blogs like www.dontdrinkthekoolaidblog.com exist. I suspect that these non-trademark meanings of Kool-Aid have frustrated more than a few Kraft brand managers, marketing types, and lawyers over the years.

Mickey Mouse, the creation of Walt Disney in 1928, has become a valuable brand and icon of The Walt Disney Company over the last several decades. However, there are also pejorative uses of the brand name that Disney apparently has learned to tolerate: "'Mickey Mouse' is a slang expression meaning small-time, amateurish or trivial. In the UK and Ireland, it also means poor quality or counterfeit." Mickey Mouse is also defined as informally meaning "useless, insignificant, or worthless," and "trivial or petty."

Spam is a well-known, probably famous, brand of canned and processed meat, owned by Minnesota-based Hormel Foods. It was the butt of jokes in a popular Monty Python sketch, first televised in 1970, and as a result, years later the Spam brand name (coined in 1937) acquired an alternate and negative meaning within the world of electronic communications, namely, junk, undesired, or unsolicited e-mail. Something most people with a computer and e-mail account despise. Probably the only types who don't despise this kind of spam are those who flood the world wide web with it and perhaps those who build businesses and software products to combat the serious problem of spam e-mail. This alternate and negative meaning of Spam is so prevalent that software manufacturers have developed their own brands containing the once single-meaning Spam brand name. For example, SPAMfighter is federally registered for "computer software for eliminating unsolicited commercial electronic mail."

Now, back to Twitter, and to what some call "Drinking the Twitter Kool-Aid."

A possible connection between these four brands (Twitter, Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam) came to me after watching a Kevin Spacey discussion on The Late Show with David Letterman, where Dave and the Academy Award-winning actor discussed Twitter for over four minutes, in which "K-Spa" starts the discussion by admitting that his "business partner" made him "drink the Kool-Aid," that is, Twitter Kool-Aid, implying that the use of Twitter is kooky, or at least promoted by kooks. After more than four minutes of discussing Twitter, and despite touting his "over 800,000 followers" on Twitter, a hilarious Spacey appeared unable to make a compelling case for the beneficial use of Twitter, leaving Letterman to end the conversation by stating, "You know what it reminds me of, oh yeah, a waste of time." Apparently, Dave had harsher words for Twitter back on April 24 when he referred to it as "stupid crap." Others have dubbed it "permission-based stalking."

It appears that Letterman is not the first to have come to the same conclusion about Twitter being "a waste of time." Others, including our own Dan Kelly, certainly have questioned time spent using Twitter. Indeed, a search on Google for "Twitter waste of time" is so popular that it appears as a ready-made search phrase option on Google after typing the character string "Twitter wa" -- and this search query actually yields 30,700,000 hits. The number one hit on Google using this search query agrees that it is, "unless you use it in a way that isn't." Given this growing negative dialogue, one has to wonder, will the public embrace a new meaning of Twitter, basically, a single word replacement for the clunkier three-word phrase "waste of time"? Instead of frittering one's time away, might you be accused of "twittering" your time away, even if you're no where near a computer, handheld device, or cellphone? Will these alternate and negative "time wasting" meanings begin to appear in dictionaries, opening the floodgates to additional undesired uses that may be difficult or impossible to control?

I submit that there are plenty of uses that the law is simply not prepared to stop. Knowing which are which is, of course, important. In addition, this is where the close collaboration of marketers, trademark types, and perhaps most importantly, PR gurus is necessary and critical, to help brand managers prevent their brands from spawning alternate and negative meanings that can distract from or undermine favorable brand development and management.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bankruptcy as a Branding Tool?

Posted on July 15, 2009 by Sharon Armstrong

I came across an interesting article in Yahoo!® Finance the other day, which gave a little bit of insight into the financial woes of some famous brand-names currently in bankruptcy. The article itself consists largely of straightforward facts and figures about these companies, but it raises a couple of interesting points about the effect of bankruptcy on branding and trademark rights and vice versa. 

The immediate question is, what happens to a brand, let alone any accompanying trademark rights, when a business goes bankrupt? The outcome likely depends on whether an organization enters Chapter 7 liquidation, in order to dismantle the business and sell its assets, or Chapter 11 reorganization. If I were a bankruptcy attorney, I promise I’d share all the answers with you, but since I’m not, you can read about some of those issues here. 

As a trademark attorney, I think a more interesting question is whether the act of entering, going through and subsequently surviving bankruptcy, in some weird, this-only-happens-in-America sort of way, can actually be a badge of honor, and a branding tool to boot. 

Case in point: GM. Like virtually all of the companies featured in the Yahoo! article, GM is in the midst of massive reorganization and restructuring. And, like the others, GM is a famous brand (perhaps the most famous among this group). And, as was likely a consideration in the reorganization of the other brands, the strength of GM’s brand undoubtedly had something to do with the decision to reorganize GM in the first place – why give up on an established market of consumers who love an (albeit unprofitable) brand if it can emerge from bankruptcy New, Improved and More Profitable? 

Unlike the others, however, and as far as I can tell, only GM has started its own Web site not simply to discuss its bankruptcy reorganization, but to use it as a platform to reshape its image and to discuss its reformation.  In this way, GM appears to have viewed it bankruptcy as an unprecedented opportunity to reach out to consumers and to discuss GM's "reinvention" and other topics "re: invention."

Tags: , , ,