It is not a secret (recipe or otherwise) that Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC to more easily (through truncation in branding) communicate an expanded menu and a healthier approach to fast food. We’ve even wondered whether KFC eventually may bow to an image of the Colonel with no words, as a non-verbal
Which brand do you believe is better equipped to enjoy the benefits of using a non-verbal logo?
In other words, which brand can more easily shed the words from the visual identity, in the hopes of joining the ranks of these likely famous non-verbal logos and brand signals?
My answer below the jump.
We’ve spent some time here discussing the world-famous Coca-Cola brand. Most recently, David Mitchell wrote about the incredible consistency of the Coca-Cola brand over the past 125 years. A while back Dave Taylor wrote a nice Ode to the Brand of Brands, the King of Cola: Coke.
And, let’s not forget my humble suggestion that a roadside sign promoting Coca-Cola at a drive-in restaurant that actually sells Pepsi instead of Coke, might be a good example of an appropriate application of the initial interest confusion test.
But, what about Coca-Cola’s frequent reference to "taste infringement" — some cleverly novel and suggestive legalese apparently coined by the Coca-Cola brand a few years back with its launch of Coke Zero?
Putting aside Brent’s fair question of whether the ads are a good idea, some of my favorite ads have been the Coke Zero viral ads, where a variety of lawyers are punk’d on hidden cameras, led to believe they are being interviewed by Coca-Cola representatives to take legal action for "taste infringement" — against the Coca-Cola team down the hall, the rival team of co-workers behind the Coke Zero launch. This one is my favorite, with lines such as these:
"Are you aware that Coke Zero tastes a lot like Coca-Cola?"
"There might be some taste infringement issues."
"I think it’s basic taste infringement, I’d like to stick with that phrase."
"Basically, a patent/copyright, a little too closely."
The ads are silly and I suspect most viewers appreciate the ridiculousness of Coca-Cola suing itself, but I’m not so sure people understand "taste infringement" to be a ridiculous or faux-legal claim — especially in this environment of increased focus and attention on the expansiveness of intellectual property rights. So, perhaps you heard it here first, there is no such legal claim.
In The Great Chocolate War, as reported by Jason Voiovich, the legal claim that Hershey’s — owner of the coveted Reese’s brand — brought against Dove’s competing peanut butter and chocolate candy, was based on trade dress. Notably, there was no asserted claim of "taste infringement". No one owns the combined taste of peanut butter and chocolate, thank goodness.
That’s not to say, however, that there aren’t intellectual property rights impacting the human sense of taste. For example, with respect to trademarks, we’ve written before about the possibility of taste being the subject of a non-traditional trademark, but to the best of my knowledge, none has been acknowledged or even identified to date. If you have information to the contrary, please share your insights here.
Of course, there is a reason for the lack of or scarcity of taste trademarks. Any product intended for human consumption is unlikely a candidate for taste trademark protection given the functionality doctrine. So, Coca-Cola can’t stop another from selling a beverage that has the same taste as Coca-Cola, just because it tastes the same, unless of course, the maker of the competitive beverage hired away key Coke employees who unlawfully revealed the closely guarded secret formula. That is how trade secret litigation happens, not "taste infringement" litigation.
This scene from the Minnesota State Fair reveals how the “About a . . . Foot Long Hot Dog” stand is a “State Fair Taste Tradition. . . .” With respect to the name, I have always believed that the “About a . . .” qualifier is lawyer-driven to avoid false advertising lawsuits if a…
by Anthony Shore, Operative Words
There was a time when a simple, honest name was good enough.‚Ä®‚Ä®
Venerable brands like General Electric, Kentucky Fried Chicken, National Biscuit Company and International Business Machines didn’t hide their business name behind metaphors or fuzzy ideas. Each name was a hammer. It delivered one message with brute, blunt force. And it was good…for a while.‚Ä®‚Ä®
Eventually those companies established a path followed by countless others. They cut short their names to cut free of their restrictions, trading names too burdened with meaning for ones that were utterly meaningless: GE, KFC, Nabisco, IBM.‚Ä®‚Ä®
The trend in naming since has been away from the harsh, direct light of descriptive names and towards the shaded canopy of evocative and arbitrary ones. The change is partly motivated by necessity, as descriptive names are difficult or impossible to protect as trademarks.‚Ä®‚Ä®
But it’s not just the law: It’s a good idea. Descriptive names are similar to other descriptive names so they aren’t differentiated and thus don’t get noticed (not without a ton of money).‚Ä®‚Ä®
Today, the vast majority of brand names are not descriptive at all.
And I think people are getting tired of it.
The pendulum is swinging back, towards names — and marketing in general — that’s honest and bullshit-free. Maybe even humble.
Living in San Francisco, I’ve sought examples of words in commerce that speak the unvarnished truth. I’ve documented some of these sightings with my cell phone camera. Several relate to food because I am a gastropod.‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®
This tidy kiosk is a perfect setting for a brand called Batter. It’s a name that’s immediate, short, and to the point with nothing artificial added. It suggests their baked goods are as pure and simple.
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?