September 30, 2009
The natural sweetener stevia has increased in popularity in proportion to concerns over the safety of sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose - not to mention the increasing demand for natural, organic food. Though the FDA initially objected to natural stevia, its December 2008 promotion of the rebiana extract of stevia used in Cargill's Truvia (developed with Coca-Cola) and PepsiCo's PureVia into the "Generally Recognized as Safe" category opened the floodgates to smaller manufacturers.
It's also led to trademark wars that amount to internecine genericide.
Coca-Cola was first to file, claiming Truvia in September 2007. PepsiCo didn't get its application for PureVia in until January 2008. When PureVia was published for opposition, Coca-Cola opposed it on the basis of a prior application and likelihood of confusion with their own trademark.
I can't blame Coca-Cola. "Pure" and "True" have similar meanings, after all, and the two names have similar sounds. It would be easy to get confused about which sweetener went with which soft drink.
And PepsiCo isn't the only company that Coca-Cola is likely to have to pursue, either, because there are more than a dozen other companies filing trademarks for stevia products, and many of those names end in "-via."
- Nativia Guarani
And if that weren't bad enough, there are the ones that use the "stev" root as well: Steviana, Stevita, Steviva. And the products that use the entire word "stevia" in their names, like NuStevia and SteviaSweet.
What's going on here? We didn't have this naming problem with earlier zero-calorie sweeteners. Competing companies chose distinctive names. No one would mistake the name "Equal" for the name "NutraSweet." Whether or not these are good products (and that's not the proper subject of this blog), they're good names.
Names like "Sweet 'N Low," "Sugar Twin," "NutraSweet," and "Equal" all highlight the product's taste, conveying the idea that it's just as good as sugar, but better for you. "Splenda" suggests a glorious new discovery, superior to all its predecessors. These names don't focus on the ingredients, because the ingredients are chemicals that you probably don't want to think about too much.
Because these products are artificial, there was no way to use them in food products without FDA approval, so it didn't matter how much time had elapsed between the discovery of the substance and the trademark filing. All that mattered was that you filed as soon as the product was approved.
Natural, un-patentable, un-trademarkable stevia has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and available in health-food stores in the United States as a dietary supplement for decades, despite the 1991 FDA import ban that restricted its use as a food additive.
That means many companies want to cash in on the "stevia" name. But their desire to do so may cause the US Patent and Trademark office to dismiss their applications because their product names are not only too similar to one another but too generic.
The real winner in this competition is likely to be the company that picks a truly distinctive name and markets it intelligently. The template is there, after all: it's worked for every previous low-calorie sweetener.
What would your top choice for a stevia product name be?
Schwan's Food Service, Inc., a leading provider of school foodservice frozen fare, recently introduced Rising Sun™ Sushi - a thaw and serve line of seafood and vegetable rolls conveniently packaged for school cafeterias.
Produced under the supervision of a Japanese Sushi chef and providing a restaurant quality sushi experience loaded with vegetables and fully cooked seafood, Schwan's sought a product name that paid homage to the sushi's authentic Japanese ingredients and taste.
Rising Sun™ Sushi accomplishes just that.
Strategic Name Development partnered with Schwan's Food Service, Inc. to develop a name that would hightlight the authenticity and fresh tasting ingredients in the new menu offering.
According to Chad Stelter, Director of Category Marketing for Schwan's Food Service, "Rising Sun implies a fresh, new day and reinforces the sushi's Japanese heritage, since Japan is known as 'the Land of the Rising Sun.'"
In addition to school cafeterias, Schwan's plans to market the Rising Sun™ Sushi to other foodservice channels including colleges & universities and healthcare facilities.
September 29, 2009
With universities auctioning off the names of everything from courses to swimming lanes in order to raise money, we began to wonder. Given the long tradition of naming campus buildings, fellowships, chairs, and entire schools after donors, why do some of these names, particularly those of the Ivy League, carry such a weight of prestige? Is it something in the names themselves, or just that those eight schools have had such a long time to build up their brand s?
Contrary to popular belief, the Ivy League is not derived from the Roman numeral IV.
Naming all eight (yes, there are only eight) universities in the Ivy League is a bit like naming the Ten Commandments: after Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, people begin to fumble, and the true list is always a bit surprising for the schools it consists of and the schools it leaves out.
More surprising, however, is the fact that most of the Ivies started their lives with different names.
Modern Name vs. Original Name
Modern Name: Brown University
Original Name: The College of Rhode Island
Modern Name: Columbia University
Original Name: King's College
Modern Name: Harvard University
Original Name: New College
Modern Name: Princeton University
Original Name: The College of New Jersey
Modern Name: University of Pennsylvania
Original Name: The College of Philadelphia
Modern Name: Yale University
Original Name: The Collegiate School
Because state schools, in general, have less prestige than private schools, it's difficult for us to imagine that Princeton could have attained the status it has today if it had remained "The College of New Jersey." It just doesn't have the same ring to it. In terms of names, the University of Pennsylvania is the odd school out in the list of Ivies--and it turns out there was considerable controversy even in the 18th century about the newly-formed state taking control of the university Benjamin Franklin created.
Although many state universities are highly-regarded academically (think of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of California at Berkeley), Penn's name may be one reason some people forget it when trying to list the Ivy League schools from memory.
The modern names of Ivy League schools--Penn included--come from two sources: locations (toponymous schools) and benefactors (eponymous schools). (Well, Columbia might be said to be a special case, as Christopher Columbus was not precisely a benefactor of the university, but it was certainly not politic to continue to use the name "King's College" after the Revolutionary War.)
- Brown (Nicholas Brown)
- Columbia (Christopher Columbus)
- Cornell (Ezra Cornell)
- Dartmouth (William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth)
- Harvard (John Harvard)
- Yale (Elihu Yale)
What naming lessons can we take away from the history of the Ivy League universities?
- First, antiquity does help: there's nothing inherently prestigious in the name "Brown," for instance.
- Second, avoid "City of" and "State of" names.
- Third, pick something that sounds Anglo-Saxon ("Dartmouth," "Princeton") or Latinate ("Columbia," "Pennsylvania").
- And fourth, use the name of an individual rather than a corporation. Not only do individuals change name less often than corporations, but it appears that no one in the 18th century went around naming schools "The British East India Company University," even if that was where the money came from. But, just to be safe, it might make sense to use the name of the company's retired founder, rather than a current CEO who might be the subject of scandal or get head-hunted by a competitor. Particularly if the founder's name is part of the company name. That way it's still clear where credit for that massive charitable donation is due.
I noted the appearance of VIA earlier this year in their Seattle and Chicago shops and I was extremely skeptical. I remain so.
Although, I would like to somewhat water down (excuse the pun) my earlier skepticism now that I have had some time to think about this development.
At first glance, Starbucks selling instant coffee is a marketing blunder - Starbucks is about high end coffee, not the mix stuff.
However, Starbucks might actually pull this off if they can overcome two challenges.
The first is, of course, a naming issue.
"Via" means "to go" or "the way," which is in fact a strong product name.
The problem is the category name "instant coffee." While Europeans like the stuff, Americans see it as cheap and bad-tasting.
Starbucks has tried to move away from the "instant coffee" label by referring to VIA, which comes in single serving cylindrical packages, as "Ready Brew."
The problem is not the coffee, people. It's the negative associations attached to the instant coffee category name. And if anyone else but Starbucks were attempting this, I'd say that getting around it is pretty much impossible.
The thing is, Starbucks is, for most people, the group that got us to drink things like Ventis and Frappuccinos, and made us feel privileged to fork over big bucks for it. Getting us to call instant coffee Ready Brew should be pretty easy for them (at least you can pronounce it).
They are not selling instant coffee, they are selling a portable Starbucks experience.
The second problem should be a bit easier to solve. The blogosphere is filled with snarky comments about the price of the stuff (a buck a cup). One reviewer says primly that that is "over 10 times the price of other instants, which come in at closer to 8 cents a cup."
Well, I can recall when drip coffee in a restaurant was less than a buck. Starbucks was the one who changed that. They've been happily charging us a fortune for coffee that we can make at home for a fraction of the price for over a decade.
A buck a cup? Heck, for Starbucks fans, that's a bargain.
September 28, 2009
The rage Australians feel today has reached us here in Minneapolis and cannot be ignored. Seems that Kraft's iconic Vegemite brand name down under has been, er, upgraded into a new format of the product and named, wait for it, iSnack 2.0.
This is not a joke. This is happening.
There is really no American equivalent to Vegemite, a pre-war spread made from "yeast products" ...um... suffice to say that this is really an Australian thing.
Nonetheless, it is an iconic brand name and this update, which is decades in the making, has prompted one blogger to dub it iSuck 2.0. In fact, it's such a silly name that some feel this must be a hoax designed to create instant buzz around a staid product.
Facebook groups have sprung up like "Boycott iSnack 2.0!!!" and Twitter has a #vegefail topic already that has risen right up through the ranks.
Over 48,000 consumers competed to dub the new Vegemite. They came up with names like Wow Chow and 2ritemite and Ruddymite but the winner was a 27 year old father of two who tells us "It was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, really. The 'i' phenomenon and web 2.0 have been recent revolutions and I thought the new Vegemite name could do the same."
This is crowdsourcing gone amuck. What do you think?
Already some are saying that Kraft has "lost the plot."
Today the Brisbane Times asks "Is Vegemite's iSnack Toast?" not least because a toaster maker has already trademarked the name and worries are that Apple may challenge the iSnack trademark much like McDonald's challenges almost anything starting with Mc.
Most Australians, however, already think this is a sick joke, some of the comments coming out of the blogosphere are priceless, including "i just cant seen to picture asking my wife next time shes at the shops to pick up a jar of iSnack 2.0"
September 23, 2009
So it seems that name brand foods are fighting the good fight against store brands.
Store brands have seen a real upswing in sales in the last few months thanks to consumers' new spendthriftiness, but name brands aren't about to just throw in the towel.
Proctor and Gamble, for its part, started the resurgence by lowering prices and is expecting to see a growth in sales by the end of the year.
Con-Agra and General Mills are also staving off the store brands via promotions and the fact that more and more consumers are staying home for dinner and turning to brands they know and love.
Additionally, name brand companies have a higher profit margin than their slashed-to-the-bone store brand competitors, which over the long run has served them well.
Reports that consumers are moving towards a price orientated buying strategy thanks to the economic pinch, seem to have been made prematurely. Trusted brand names appear to be weathering the storm, no matter what they cost.
In fact, branded food labels have been upping their prices as private label sales trends have "lost steam."
I do think that private label brand naming is really impressive. And it may be true that private labels are learning to be more competitive, but well-known brand names aren't backing down from the fight anytime soon.
Posted by William Lozito at 10:15 AM
Posted to Beverages | Brand Naming | Branding | Consumer Electronics | Durable Goods | Fashion | Food | Health and Beauty | Household Goods | Industry | Naming | Product Naming | Retail
Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 21, 2009
Is there really a need for a computer that sits between a notebook and a netbook? This would be sort of a dumbed down notebook computer or a really ramped up PDA, possibly a tablet but we really have not seen it yet and we certainly do not have a name for it. Kris Abel suggested these names as alternatives for netbooks a few weeks ago: "Ultra-mobile PC", "Mini Notebook", "Portal PC", or "Web Sherpa" and if such a product were to come around, maybe one of these would work. Maybe not.
At least one company has tried to call the computer that falls between the smartphone and the netbook a Smartbook. But many people believe that funky term "netbook" will hang in there to be a sort of catchall.
Not if VIA has its way. Last week it came up with the NetNote, which is what Tweak Town calls an "ultra-mobile PC" in a blog that labels the name "ridiculous."
VIA calls this a "a mashup between the netbook and the traditional notebook" but, well, how confusing. The NetNote naming is worse than ridiculous. It's creating a category that really is not there. It forces consumers to ask if there is a point where a netbook stops being a netbook and starts being more like a notebook, but still not either. Get it? I didn't think so.
Gizmag asks if "we really need more buzz-words flying around that essentially describe the same (or very similar) technology?" while Trusted Reviews just issues a huge frustrated "sigh." VIA Netbook News simply reports that the name is "not liked."
The interesting name that does come out of this is the Surfboard platform. Good name for the platform in a flat little device. But NetNote? Not.
September 18, 2009
Classic feuds in business are legendary. Think Pepsi and Coke, or Apple and Microsoft or...Adidas and Puma?
I have written before about how the Dassler brothers literally split the German town of Herzogenaurach with their 60 year old feud. Rudolf Dassler and Adolf Dassler started out making athletic footwear in their mother's kitchen and had a falling out during the war. Adolf went carried on the Adidas (Adi-Dassler) brand. Rudolf made Puma. And the brothers never spoke to each other again. Even the workers for each respective factory kept their distance from each other.
The two rival companies are having a friendly soccer game this coming Monday. This may signal the end of this long feud and (dare we say it) the beginning of a beautiful friendship. The game is in support of the Peace One Day organization.
But can peace ever prevail over this rivalry...even though the brothers have both died?
If they do manage to bury the hatchet, Nike had better watch out.
Maybe Steve Jobs and his crew should call Bill Gates and challenge the senior people there to a game of Ultimate Frisbee? Such a move would rock the computer world.
Al Ries never fails to be insightful. He has a new blog post on Branding Strategy Insider that discusses, in some depth, the relationship between the Visual and the Verbal in advertising.
As a brand naming consultant, I obviously find this of great interest. Ries suggests that imagery and "the right choice of words" (including a good brand name) act like a "hammer and a nail" to bring home the emotional effect of the brand.
I'm not going to disagree. I think that the old adage that a "picture is worth 1000 words" is correct, but a good brand name is worth just about as much. If you doubt me, ask people what the name Apple brings to mind, or Nike or Coke. You'll get a mouthful because these brand names are loaded with meaning.
Most research supports this, of course. The Branding Strategy Insider, in fact, has posted articles about this before, discussing how people in this business suffer from "wordophobia, a morbid fear of words" but noting that in fact the words behind the imagery carry the ultimate message to the consumer.
It is tempting to believe that visual cues are all important, but I of course do not subscribe to this.
At least one study discovered that "when visuals are associated with the target information, such as a brand name, then memory for the brand is enhanced." Well, of course.
I might also note that brand naming, the creation of slogans and copy all have become even more important as consumers begin to interact with brands via mobile apps that are information heavy.
The text and naming you use to communicate the brand message, I believe, have never been more important.
September 17, 2009
Beyoncé just cannot stay out of the news.
Abercrombie & Fitch is getting ready to get fierce with Beyoncé over the "fierce" trademark.
She (possibly) wants to release a perfume that uses her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, via a multi-million dollar deal with Coty. And A&F has filed a lawsuit to prevent Coty from using "Fierce" on the fragrance.
The problem is A&F already has a Fierce fragrance and claims it is their brand's "signature scent" and is regularly sprayed in the stores. And they fiercely want to protect the product naming and branding.
A&F sees a likelihood of confusion between the "Sasha Fierce" and "Fierce" brand name. "Fierce," nowadays, means "cool" or "fabulous," not just "mean" and "dangerous." But Coty execs says that the name Sasha Fierce actually will not be used.
So what's up?
The problem is that Beyoncé has filed a letter of intent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the Sasha Fierce mark. This is therefore a preemptive lawsuit by A&F that seems to seek an agreement that the Sasha Fierce name will not be used by Coty. Some bloggers think she should choose "Ego" or "Irreplaceable."
Let's see how fierce this product naming trademark conflict can get.
September 16, 2009
Would you tattoo a brand name to your skin?
A new company does just that. MyBrandz.com is a new start up that offered free tattoos of brands on September 7th ("Free Tattoo Day") to people who really want to "live the brand." One of the founders says:
We'd like to let the people do what they want with the brands, enjoy the life of the brands and not only buy them and let the brand owners tell them what to with them.The real attraction here is that consumers get more control over the brand names they love, rather than simply becoming walking billboards for them.
It's common knowledge in branding circles that the Nike swoosh is the most popular brand tattoo out there, but the launch of this company indicates that the branding tattoo trend isn't going to end anytime soon.
Even brand names like Pratt & Whitney get some serious love from tattoo enthusiasts.
In addition, people have tattooed themselves with the Louis Vuitton Logo as well as the interlocking Cs in Chanel. In one case, the latter tattoo was put on a blogger's buttocks - the blogger in question points out that it's now "mine and mine alone."
As previously mentioned, tattoos, it seems, allow consumers to own the brand. I am reminded of the Apple tattoo William H. Macy wears in the film Wild Hogs and his line ""I know. Trademarked. But what are they gonna say? It's in my skin b**ch!"
The point is that this seems to be a way in which people can "own" a brand beyond the product. Not surprisingly, Apple tattoos appear to be one of the more popular needle choices as of late - better watch our Nike.
September 15, 2009
This one sports a "striking iridescent body, elegant wings and long antennae" and seems to be one of the 5000 insects that get named each year. The classic insect names in recent memory went to a set of slime mold beetles who were given monikers after Buch, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Amazingly, this was meant as a compliment, the guy who named them was a loyal Republican.
Naming insects is pretty tricky, I must say. But ridiculous names infest all of Zoology. There is already an "Aloha" bug as well as an echinoid named "Disaster" and a spider called "Oops" as well as a fly named "This" (as in "Look at This!").
On top of that, there are some pretty funny looking insects. The one I like is the "Happy Face Spider," so named because, well, take a look.
September 14, 2009
The big question on my mind this morning is whether or not an ultra high-end jewelry brand name can survive as an online entity. In order to sell trinkets that start at $58,000 and run up to $10 million, it would have to have a really big, recognizable name, because we're not talking about diamond earrings here.
Welcome to Fabergé 2.0.
Here is a luxury retailer that is opening its doors (well, so to speak), during a recession, using nothing but a web site and a store in Geneva.
The kicker here is that those willing to spend thirty grand on a brooch already know the Fabergé brand name. And Fabergé is banking on the belief that high-net-worth people will be comfortable making expensive purchases online.
Their new launch is the first since 1917, when the communists nationalized the creations of Peter Carl Fabergé, the guy who brought us the big eggs (Imperial Easter Eggs).
The family lost the rights to the name in 1951 and it has since been tacked on to low-end jewelry and cosmetics.
But in 2007, an investment firm "acquired the trademarks and Peter Carl Fabergé`s two surviving great granddaughters were brought back into the company and the Fabergé Heritage Council was formed to safeguard the legacy of the family name".
Now this is all very interesting, but will it really work?
It is utterly dependent upon whether or not the Fabergé name can get the ultra-rich to surf the web and put down serious some cash for some expensive trinkets. If it does work, it will be proof positive that the Internet actually does reach the well-heeled.
September 11, 2009
AMD is trying to de-emphasize its company brand and instead is focusing on what customers can do with computers.
This is part of their "Vision" marketing plan that offers users "Premium," "Black" and "Ultimate" Vision. These will be on permanent labels that will sooner or later morph into removable stickers. Customers will also be exposed to labels like "See," "Create" and "Share" that tell you pretty much what the computer is good for.
As one exec said, "I don't care if a mainstream consumer remembers the AMD brand. What I care about is if they buy an AMD-based platform in a retail setting." CRN adds that "PC users don't give a hoot about what kind of chip runs their systems and on."
I strongly disagree, Intel is the classic case of an extremely ingredient brand that has created a strong preference among millions of consumers.
It's a "rather wordy" new approach that breaks down a possible computer buy into checklists. This will be more helpful to the newbie than to advanced users looking for specific capabilities.
But it does do away with all kind of extraneous branding. This pushes the company into being what Crunchgear calls the "Mac of PC hardware," a brand that is all about user experience over parts.
This is probably a good idea. There are currently 221 different AMD stickers out there. That's just confusing. This drops it down to three.
Simplicity should be a key objective in any brand architecture.
September 10, 2009
So McDonald's has lost the McCurry war in Malaysia after a ruling by Malaysia's Federal Court declared that the McDonald's trademark was not violated by a small, local Indian restaurant.
This is a true (but certainly not unique) David and Goliath story - small time curry joint gets pushed around by the Golden Arches.
Not surprisingly, this led to some criticism in the blogosphere, with some people taking McDonald's side: "There are many people named McCurry but the owners are not one of them. Neither are they Scottish. So it's a bit weird to pull the 'common Scottish name' argument when they are selling Malaysian food."
The owners of the Indian restaurant claim that the "McCurry" naming actually stands for "Malaysian Chicken Curry." Yeah, we're sure it does...
McDonald's obviously has an interest in protecting its name. This is really business as usual for a company that has not only tried to persuade The Oxford English Dictionary to remove the word "McJobs" from its publications, while also attempting, unsuccessfully, to force a Jamaican McDonald's that served curried goat to change its name.
This battle is ultimately all about the "Mc" prefix. McDonald's sees the value in the automatic association it gets from names that start with "Mc," and rightly so.
Unfortunately for McDonald's, the "Mc" prefix cannot be considered solely theirs.
Off of their big win, the McCurry folks now want to start a chain. Good luck with that.
September 9, 2009
Offering a mysterious message on their Twitter account, Google has run with this by writing "1.12.12 220.127.116.11 15 1.18.5 18.104.22.168.14.7 20.15 21.19", which, decoded, means "All your O are belong to us" which seems to come from the Zero Wing game.
Google, meanwhile, has also released a more formal statement:
We consider the second 'o' critical to user recognition of our brand and pronunciation of our name. We are actively looking into the mysterious tweet that has appeared on the Google twitter stream and the disappearance of the "o" on the Google homepage. We hope to have an update in the coming weeks.And now a mysterious post on Google's South Korean blog suggests that more mysterious doodles are on the way.
Google uses the home page doodle to celebrate some fairly arcane dates, but this is really obscure. And despite the multiple meanings or explanations, Tech Crunch tells us that "the truth is out there" and seems to support the O Campaign idea.
I think this is an excellent way to generate buzz around Google's already well-known brand name. By simply suggesting that one of the world's biggest brands might lose a letter even more people will be made aware of the Google name and pay closer attention to their logo doodles.
September 8, 2009
Absolut vodka sales are way down in the U.S., and since we represent half of the vodka's market, this is an Absolut Catastrophe. The reign of Absolut as the coolest and one of the most pricey vodkas is one of the best tales of advertising lore: Absolut took a blah product and made it cool.
Now, less expensive upstarts like Skyy and Svedka have been stealing their market share, essentially by using their own tactics against them.
Let's give Skyy and Svedka their due: the names are interesting and, most importantly, Nordic sounding. The packaging is just as attractive as Absolut's.
Svedka gets a great deal of leverage off its "cheap chic" bottle design and prominent brand naming but has bombed younger drinkers with its "fembot" ads and of course its Swedish heritage. The bottle is meant to look "equally attractive lit up on the back-bar of a hip club as well as lining a club store's shelf."
Absolut, meanwhile, seems to be going for staid naming and branding, including a city range including a new Absolut Boston flavor that tastes like "black tea" (think Boston Tea Party) with green coloring (thing Fenway park).
I'm not trying to be critical but Boston just does not make me think of vodka. Are they trying to create a niche within a niche?
Absolut owns the premium-cool vodka category, mostly because they have the advantage of essentially creating it. Absolut can take heart that alternative, non-Russian naming is still on the upswing (much to Smirnoff's chagrin). But they need to aim at a more youthful market and stay achingly relevant.
In my opinion, the biggest disaster the company could face would be a move on the part of consumers back to Mother Russian (Stoli) or to Polish naming.
Get back to what you know best, Absolut.
Customers like shabby-chic? What about an Absolut Funky campaign? Absolut Cool?
September 4, 2009
Despite the down economy, the summer of 2009 has proven that dedication and determination are values still present in America's modern day workforce.
We may have been down, but thanks to each and every worker out there that refused to give in, we're starting to see signs of a brighter tomorrow.
And whether you are looking forward to new opportunities this fall or dearly holding onto memories of this past summer, this upcoming holiday weekend calls for celebration and relaxation.
So from all of us at Strategic Name Development, we wish you all the best that the last few days of summer and Labor Day have to offer, because come Tuesday morning...
It's back to work!
Happy Labor Day!
September 3, 2009
The Branding Strategy Insider has me thinking about the relationship between brand naming and category domination. They think that dominating a category is more important than extending your brand - no matter how well regarded your brand name is, it simply cannot grow if the category is dying or overly crowded.
Kodak is the prime example here: we all know the brand name, but few of us use film anymore and their crossover into digital photography has been rocky. The advice here is to start a new brand in a new category, aka Starbucks, Red Bull and BlackBerry. The idea is to have a narrow focus, get in first and grab deep recognition and reach. Clorox = bleach. Tabasco = hot sauce.
That's nice work, if you can get it.
Starbucks is currently fighting a war of attrition against mega-brand McDonald's. Gatorade is on the ropes. And brands like Hellman's are worried about private label brands started by Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven and Target. You may be able to grab a category with a new brand name and get some really good brand recognition, but don't count the big guys out, ever.
What protects you is a very, very interesting brand that occupies serious headspace with consumers (Apple).
The soft drink sector is a case in point. It is jammed with new product names but, again and again, the well known brands seem to prevail.
The Branding Strategy Insider notes that Coke's market share is eroding, as is its brand value. But it is still the world's favorite brand and calmly faces a deluge of new brand names each year, including idiotic ones like Simply Cocaine. They also buy into the upstarts to further expand their reach. Even making the biggest marketing blunder in history hasn't stopped Coke.
A brand name is a promise or experience, and how it is communicated to customers can dictate its market share.
In the business of naming and branding, it is very rare to find a company that is setting out to dominate a new, empty field. The real challenge is building up your brand name against virulent and numerous competitors. And good naming and branding is part of that.
September 2, 2009
I was amused to read that Ben & Jerry's has (briefly) renamed their Chubby Hubby ice cream to Hubby Hubby in a nod to Vermont's new gay-friendly marriage laws.
The change only affects ice cream sold in Vermont but they have advertised their support of the Freedom to Marry group worldwide on various social media platforms. They have also publicly championed the cause to the Vermont legislature as well.
It's a bold step. The tagline on one of the ads is "Now more than ever, Vermont is for lovers... & for lovers of marriage equality."
One branding expert thinks that despite the fact that only 44% of Americans support same sex marriage, the brand name will benefit mainly because the kind of people who like their particular ice cream understand their avowed liberal leanings.
The company is owned by the staid Unilever, which long ago decided to give Ben and Jerry's pretty much free rein to sell their products with quirky brand name.
September 1, 2009
The new controversial tech term is "smartbook," which is a device that falls between a netbook and a smartphone. According to one exec from US-based Qualcomm, it offers "the smartphone experience in a larger form factor" and the idea has gained traction with some major computer players despite the fact that no one company has really cracked the market on this type of gizmo yet.
Now, a German company called Smartbook AG has waded into the fray, claiming that the smartbook name is theirs. There is even a restraining order against Qualcomm from using the term in Germany. Beyond that, they even smacked a blogger around for using the name.
Qualcomm has already been sued over their appropriation of the term "netbook" and the blogosphere seems undecided as to whether Smartbook AG can hold on to the name.
Things may get so sticky that some say Qualcomm might be advised to look for another nifty name, like, say, ARMbook (after its ARM-based processor). I'm pretty sure that ARMbook is a nonstarter--it makes me think that you'd get a sore ARM carrying it around.
Smartbook seems generic to me, just like smartphones.