The above advertising billboard is plastered all over the Twin Cities at the moment, and it got me thinking, so here I am, once again, writing about Coke Zero, remember this can?
Coke obtained a favorable decision from the TTAB early last year, ruling that ZERO is not generic for
-Martha Engel, Attorney
Marketing has always been an exercise in getting consumers to make a connection with a brand. As our friend Seth Godin once said “Marketing is no longer about the stuff that you make, but the story that you tell.” With the widespread use of social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, those
Brand signals have been described as meaning vessels before, and vessels of trust too. Does that make a branded product package, container, or configuration a vessel within vessel?
The tin cans below that have been recycled and transformed (as seen in the image I captured at the Minnesota State Fair), were most likely
As you may recall, last September we wrote about Coca-Cola’s Significant Interest in Zero Marks, discussing Coca-Cola’s defense of a trademark infringement suit brought by an individual named Mirza Baig, who claimed rights in “Naturally Zero” for Canadian natural spring water, and Coca-Cola’s contrasting attempts to own and federally-register various marks containing the term
Coca-Cola just announced it is introducing Coke Zero in India, which will make it the sub-brand’s 149th market in the world, a truly remarkable reach.
As the popular Coke Zero brand is approaching its tenth anniversary in the U.S., it seems like a good time to explore Coca-Cola’s trademark position in COKE ZERO and COCA-COLA
Repetition can be a beautiful thing, especially when it’s about The Real Thing:
This electronic billboard advertisement is another good example of Coca-Cola advertising that leaves certain aspects of the brand icons to the imagination, this one discloses only the middle portion of the famous contour bottle shape trademark.
And, speaking of
Irony is something I enjoy capturing, as you already know, especially when it comes to branding. Take this recent image from my favorite hot dog joint in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Yesterdog:
Note the vintage Drink Coca-Cola signage on the wall, directly behind the modern soft drink fountain, delivering only Pepsi products, to my
—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®
Last November a polar-white holiday Coke design forced Coca-Cola to kick the can off store shelves after a swift and vocal backlash from Coke imbibers. The endothermic reaction was like they had changed their formula or something. Oh yea, they did that already.
The arctic can design
I’m not talking about brands that say one thing and do another. I’m not talking about brands that don’t live up to their promise. I’m literally talking about brands with two faces. One face may be confident, complicated, technical, professional, and/or formal. Let’s call him, Stephen. The other face might be friendly, simple, approachable, engaging, and/or informal
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 G Doesn’t Grasp Successful Marketing