If sparkling water is the remedy to plain old boring water, why are some trademarks for sparkling water so … flat?
Back in May, Steve wrote about a new Pepsi sparkling water product branded as bubly™. That’s “bubbly” misspelled “bubly.” For sparkling water, it’s also descriptive, probably generic, and definitely not a conceptually strong trademark. Just look at this snip from the Wikipedia page for “carbonated water,” listing “bubbly water” as a generic alternative term:
Then earlier this month, it was announced that Pepsi has agreed to buy SodaStream, the popular manufacturer of at-home sparkling water makers, its most economical model branded Fizzi™. That’s “fizzy” misspelled “Fizzi.”
De ja vu, anyone? Take a look at the Wikipedia page again, if you have to:
So, here we have another descriptive, probably generic, definitely not conceptually strong trademark that lacks any suggestive, inherently distinct sparkle. And if there’s any doubt, check out the descriptive uses of the word “fizz” right on the product packaging:
And on the label attached to the machine:
And on the product website:
And in the consumer comments:
And in the FAQs:
Do marketers of sparkling water hate trademarks? (And why are they such bad spellers?)
Perhaps we’ll never know. Or perhaps the answer is simply that these marketing types just wanted to avoid this:
But what’s the fun in something so flat!
Marketing-types, what would you do? Would you bottle the brand that is so flat it needs no imagination for its meaning to bubble up in the minds of consumers? Or would you go with the brand that nobody knows how to say but plenty of folks enjoy . . . and enjoy poking fun at?