Truncation

In this edition of AlphaWatch, it appears another major brand owner is flirting with truncation and wants to be g too (of course, not to be confused with G2 or even G for that matter), despite the fact that the products associated with each brand might be considered complementary (assuming you’re looking to break a sweat):

So, guess who appears to be working on developing their own family or series of lil’ g marks (of course, not to be confused with another’s G Series)? Visual answer below the jump:Continue Reading GeeWhiz: Another Edition of Trademark AlphaWatch

Welcome to another edition of AlphaWatch (the next one in our queue), where we explore the reach of single-letter trademarks, this time focusing on the letter Q and the single-letter branding cues it might suggest to consumers:

Are you able to name the un-truncated version of this single-letter mark and brand?

My daughter could. The answer is below the jump.Continue Reading Taking Branding Cues from Q in the Single-Letter Trademark Queue

A couple of days ago, Brandweek featured an interview of Peter Clarke, CEO and founder of Product Ventures, a Fairfield, Connecticut design firm that has created packaging for Heinz, Folgers and Febreze, among other brands:

Brandweek: You believe that packaging has become simpler of late. Can you describe what you mean by that?

…

      

You may recall the Gatorade v. Powerade false advertising lawsuit filed by a Pepsico entity (Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.) against rival The Coca-Cola Company back in April, discussed here (with a copy of the complaint).

You also may recall how G scored an F in the courtroom, back in August, losing a hotly contested motion for…

There is a time and a place for the use of double negatives. The Rolling Stones made the double negative "I Can’t Get No" lyrics famous in the legendary hit Satisfaction (#2 on Rolling Stone Magazine’s List of the Top Songs of All Time). Pink Floyd made the double negative lyrical phrase "We Don’t Need No" famous in the song Another Brick in The Wall, Part 2. With respect to song titles, what about Diana Ross’ recording of the double negative Ain’t No Mountain High Enough?

Despite these widely popular uses, we are all taught (at an early age, my children have confirmed) not to use no double negatives, never, ever, as they are grammatically incorrect, inappropriate, and most likely to be avoided at all cost in writing and speech. Indeed, to fix the double negative problem, we also are taught that a double negative should be removed and resolve to a single positive. So, we’re told that a double negative carries the same meaning as a single positive.

Does that mean Mick Jagger and Keith Richards really meant to say, "I Can Get Satisfaction"? What about the "We Don’t Need No" lyrics? Did Roger Waters really intend to communicate that "We Need Both Education and Thought Control? Did Diana Ross really mean, "There is a Mountain High Enough"? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Those "positive" versions of the double negative lyrics create entirely different meanings, in my opinion, and if used, they would have put us into a collective slumber.

So, clearly, there is a creative role for double negatives in music, but how about in branding?

My question was inspired driving into work a couple of weeks ago, as I was passed by a Sara Lee delivery truck prominently displaying a double negative tag line ("Nobody Doesn’t Like Sara Lee"), confirming that the guardians of the Sara Lee brand continue to believe there is a time and place for the use of double negatives in branding.

In fact, Sara Lee owns several federal trademark registrations for the "Nobody Doesn’t Like Sara Lee" tag line covering a wide range of food items, including "rolls, pies, cakes, cheesecake, muffins, ice cream," "flavored mustards, sauces and mayonaises," "cheese," "bread, bagels and buns," "bakery goods," "processed meats," and "frozen prepared meat lasagna entrees."

Perhaps not surprisingly, I couldn’t find any other trademark on the entire USPTO database that included both of the terms "nobody" and "doesn’t." Given how unique and inherently awkward the phrase is, one might wonder whether substituting any term or other brand name for Sara Lee might avoid a likelihood of confusion with the original.Continue Reading Double Negatives in Branding: Nobody Doesn’t = Everybody Does?

E-mail a gift card

The single-letter branding and trademark truncation trend continues.

Can you name the retailer selling online gift cards sent by e-mail, using no other identification besides the li’l "a" shown here?

Does this li’l "a" logo with a radish inside help?

How about these, do they help? Valentine's Day Winter Hat

Well, just so you know, it’s not this retailer: Continue Reading Alpha Watch: Li’l “a” Goes to the “e” Market

RadioShack recently introduced a new name, rebranding its stores "The Shack", which now adorns their retail environment and marketing efforts.

The change was prompted by a desire to update the 88-year-old brand as they transition to mobile phone and wireless products without losing brand equity and mind-share, according to RadioShack. As Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times mused, "For a company that wants to talk up its expertise in mobile phones, no one seems to have noticed that mobile phones are radios!"

To officially roll out the new, shortened, and supposedly hipper moniker, RadioShack staged "The Shack Summer Netogether" in NY and SF August 6 – 8, broadcasting the event live via "massive laptops" located in Times Square and Justin Herman Plaza, respectively. Video was streamed live on their Facebook page and their redesigned web site.

The current trend to truncate brand names is puzzling. Is this an attempt to beguile the text-message obsessed youth market, where everything is "abrv8d"? Or drive up sales through brand-brevity because we lack long attention spans?

I understand distilling a brand to its essence. Coke and FedEx are good examples, but Pizza Hut and Circuit City are not.Continue Reading A Shack by Any Other Name…

              VS.          powerade-ad-ion4.jpg

Almost four months ago now, I blogged about the filing of the Gatorade v. Powerade false advertising and trademark dilution lawsuit, here. At the time, some called Gatorade’s false advertising claims “dubious” and others chided Gatorade for biting Powerade’s bait to file suit.

Advertising Age has now reported about the recent court ruling addressing Gatorade’s request for an emergency preliminary injunction, here. For those of you who have been looking for a copy of the court’s interesting 54-page decision, it is available, here.

As you will see, the Court’s opening paragraph telegraphed its critical view of Gatorade’s claims:

This is a case about an advertising battle between two major consumer products companies over one company’s comparison of its beverage to human sweat. That company advertises its beverage by promoting its inclusion of certain electrolytes contained in sweat, and its competitor wants it to stop.

In short, G got an F in the courtroom. First, G failed to prove that any of the challenged statements were false or establish it was entitled to the requested emergency injunctive relief while the case works its way toward trial. Second, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl also found “frivolous” certain of G’s arguments relating to alleged irreparable harm. Last, G appeared to frustrate the Court by ignoring it made similar advertising statements about its own Gatorade Endurance Formula product, as late as a week before filing suit against Powerade. The “pot calling the kettle black” never plays well in the courtroom. I wonder who is doing the sweating now.Continue Reading G gets an F in the Courtroom: The Gatorade v. Powerade Case