Brandverbs: The Highest Mark of Success?
When was the last time you said: "I'm going to go use a search engine to look up information on tonight's event." The answer to that is either never, or sometime circa the early 2000's, but since then it's more than likely that most Americans say "I'm going to go Google more information on tonight's event." And that is my friend is brandverbing.
Companies like Xerox, Hoover, and even Google have gone to great lengths to avoid their brands becoming verbs, but why? When a brand becomes a verb you know that it has reached mass market consumer recognition, so wouldn’t becoming so engrained in society that your brand becomes part of the language be the ultimate degree of success for a brand?
So while others have fought hard to keep their brand from becoming a verb others are spending a lot of time and resources to make sure their brand is used as verbs by consumers in everyday life and conversation. Enter: Vanguard; an investment company who in 2010 began a highly visible campaign to turn their brand name into a verb.
The move by Vanguard shows that they too recognize the significance and potential payoff for their brand to be used in everyday language just like Xerox or Google has now experienced. And unlike a brand becoming genericized like asprin, zipper, and escalator (yup, these were all trademarked brand names at one point) a brand that becomes a verb is more appealing than its generic counterpart and has less risk in losing its brand appeal. Seth Godin, American author and speaker, said: "people care much more about verbs than nouns. They care about things that move, that are happening, that change. They care about experiences and events and the way things make us feel. Nouns just sit there, inanimate lumps. Verbs are about wants and desires and wishes."
So if what Godin says is true, every brand should strive to be a brandverb when appropriate. After all a brand is more than a product or logo, a brand is about an experience and the expectations we have of that brand. So if becoming a brandverb will incite those feelings then what's the big deal? These days I believe becoming a brandverb is not a kiss of death but the mark of success.
Made in Detroit
......................................................................................................................................................................
An article in Thursday’s (3/17, 2011) Wall Street Journal by Jeff Bennett, said Chrysler Group filed suit Tuesday to keep a local group from using “Imported from Detroit” on clothing. They want to stop Moda Group LLC from selling T-shirts and other clothing “branded with the words: Imported From Detroit” in their Pure Detroit store chain. The use of “branded with the words” is an interesting choice of words. A quick trademark search shows the phrase is currently Published for Opposition, or pending a final trademark. The mark is filed in multiple product categories covering everything from key chains to eye glasses. No doubt they plan on using the mark on all kinds of chotchki.
Is something like Imported From Detroit trademarkable? There are all kinds of problems with letting a private firm own a public property like a city’s name. The issue has even boiled over into international legal rights to use product descriptors like Champagne and Parmesan, because they do refer to a specific geographical location. So, is "Imported From Detroit" unique enough to be trademarked? Certainly Made In Detroit would not be. It’s a common usage phrase that is mandatory labeling for many products. But since Imported From Detroit is a turn of words based an import not coming from a foreign country, perhaps it is. It is a phrase that would not come about in ordinary language, unless you’re in another country.
Should Chrysler protect their mark from some little tourist store in Detroit or should they promote its use? Surely, they don’t expect proceeds from Imported From Detroit key chains, hats, and coffee mugs to be a real income machine? By simply allowing its use, they give up ownership, so they’ve got to make the effort. But would they be better off allowing its wide-spread use, as it promotes their products indirectly? You would think so – more awareness they do not have to pay for. Brand building is about building awareness and a set of specific associations. Perhaps the T-shirts are Made In China? Maybe the fashion associations of Chrysler and the Pure Detroit store chain clash. But, free publicity for your brand and your ideas? It seems like a no-brainer. Maybe the real problem was the ad agency seeing the free publicity as a threat to THEIR income stream.
There is no doubt that trademarks are an important part of our world of commerce, especially in an Information Economy where we are competing against low cost labor from other parts of the world. On the other hand, Imported From Detroit seems like something we all should have a right to use, if we have a product made in Detroit. Perhaps that’s a big IF? Regardless, it’s just another example of our ever more branded world.
Contributed by Bill Lippincott, Vice President
Brand Equity to the Highest Bidder
These days, everything old seems new again: Disney has resurrected Tron from 1982, and Hello Kitty is just hitting her stride at 35 years old. It may seem like a great time to dig up and polish off a few forgotten brands.
On December 8, Brands USA Holdings will auction approximately 150 “priceless” and forgotten brand names for those who might want to cash in on the latest nostalgia trend. Names like Handi-Wrap, General Instrument, Lucky Whip and Meister Brau will be up for grabs to the highest bidder.
With awareness as the first building block of brand equity, it might seem like brand resurrection would provide an immediate head start in the market. As tempting as it may seem to claim the identity of an abandoned trademark, investors should beware that the residual value of the brand is also its risk.
Abandoned, orphaned or zombie trademarks live in a legal gray zone, as explained in the article The Zombie Trademark: A Windfall and A Pitfall, in the law journal of the International Trademark Association. But consumers of Brand 2.0 would most certainly be confused and disappointed if they are allowed to think that the original product is back on shelves. As with any relationship, I would recommend honesty. Telling consumers that you are recycling another company’s brand is a much better strategy than trying to backpedal from consumers who feel duped.
Trader Joe, meet Trader John
I worked in New York’s Union Square for 5 years. If I needed a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, I had 6 grocery stores to choose from: D’agostino, Gristedes, Whole Foods, Food Emporium, Garden of Eden, and Trader Joes.
So what could possibly be newsworthy about another grocery store opening on West 14th street?
It’s the name. In January the store affixed its new awning and on it were the words: “Trader John’s”. Yes, you read that right. John’s. Trader Joe’s, unsurprisingly, has filed a suit against the operator of the new store, suggesting the name infringes on their trademark. The CEO of Gristedes Foods, who owns Trader John’s, says that his name is John, and therefore he has a right to name one of his chains after himself.
So where is the line drawn between borrowing equity, and stealing it? I can’t help but be reminded of aRead more
Making a Mark with Brand Punctuation
Brand namers are constantly searching for new and innovative ways to utilize the 26 letters of the English alphabet. Perhaps the answer is beyond those letters. A punctuation mark in your brand name not only helps it stand out from the crowd, but, if it is truly distinctive, can even be registered and protected as part of your trademark.
Look at how these brands have used a little punctuation in a big way:
E*Trade
Consumer identification with the asterisk between E and Trade is so strong that the punctuation itself is part of E*Trades registered trademark. The asterisk has also been extended across E*Trade's marketing materials, serving as a calling card for the brand.
Yahoo!
If a name ever needed an exclamation point, Yahoo was it. Without added punctuation the word Yahoo was at risk for coming across as an insult or as sarcasm. The exclamation point forces audiences to read the name as it was intended, as a celebratory shout. The simple mark has become as much a part of the name as the letters themselves.
Häagen-Dazs
If you think that this name is simply using traditional diacritics to stay true to its foreign heritage, think again. The umlaut in Häagen-Dazs is as meaningless as the name itself. The brand simply uses two made up words with cleverly placed punctuation in order to appeal to upscale audiences seeking a super-premium ice cream import.
Contributed by Maghan Cook
Mad Addiction
......................................................................................................................................................................
The hit A&E Series Mad Men won accolades this year for TVs Most Outstanding Drama Series. Its base premise is about a fictional 1960s New York City advertising agency Sterling Cooper and its executives.
Even being a fictional show mostly centered on the personal lives of the characters, we still get a glimpse into branding and advertising conception during the 60s. What I enjoy most about this newfound addiction of mine are the brands featured as clients of the agency. American Airlines, Heineken, Maidenform, Cadillac and Kodak are just a few. I’ve also learned that some of these mentioned do pay for the placement in addition to their advertising spots during the show.
Although the show takes place over 50 years ago when there weren’t as many legal trademarking challenges to overcome, it still portrays creativity on a personal level, even while dealing with the transitional social challenges of those times. For those of us fortunate enough to be working in the branding industry, there's a sense of pride in watching the perspective of what it must have been like then, but also how things have changed. Pairing that with the intriguing lives of the characters has made this show one that I can’t ever miss.
By: Kelly Wilson
Word Stretch #2: Freedom
FREEDOM: The quality of state of being free: independence / Exemption or release / Ease, facility / Frankness / Unrestricted use / A political right
At first glance the word freedom may not appear very ‘stretchable,’ but a quick trademark search reveals 94 registered or pending marks. Certainly a word that can apply to everything from herbicides to hotels has got some flexibility.
While looking over the various trademarks, I realized that “freedom” can be divided into four categories:
1. Freedom as a philosophy- meaning free will
Leveraging the emotions behind personal identity, name brands in this category suggest living independently and authentically – being who you want to be. Brands that use this angle would include Freedom surfboards, inline skates, and the Freedom cologne by Tommy Hilfiger.
2. Freedom with regard to politics- meaning liberty or right
Freedom in this case garners strong political or government connotations. Brand names under this category are literally relaying a sense of protection and government, including Freedom aircrafts, armored vests as well as the ever so popular Freedom fries.
3. Freedom from restriction- meaning relief, emancipation
Many products in the medical field use the word freedom to connote relief from discomfort or restraints. Fresenius has a Freedom home dialysis machine. Freedom pesticide suggests freeing your crops or land from pests.
4. Freedom to do things- meaning latitude, flexibility
The most ‘freeing’ category of the four, these trademarks suggest providing range and ability. Freedom communications suggests going and connecting wherever you want, and Winnebago’s Freedom motor home invites consumers to explore the open road.
Freedom is a concept that everyone can relate to in one way or another, which makes it a potent word in the naming industry. Of course, with 94 trademarks in the US alone, whether it’s ‘free’ to own or not is up to your trademark attorney.
Contributed by: Maghan Cook
Wee Wars
The Wiimote is a popular nickname for the remote control used in the goliath gaming system, Nintendo Wii.
The Weemote is a remote control for kids, trademarked by Fobis Technologies in 2000.
How can these two products coexist in such a similar field? Time magazine recently published an interesting article about the situation. The catch is that the Nintendo Wiimote name is not trademarked, or explicitly used in marketing or packaging campaigns but, rather, has come to popularity through online and third party communications.
While Nintendo is enjoying a free marketing ride thanks to internet chatter, Fobis is in a bind. "Wiimote" has become part of mainstream gaming vernacular, and the Weemote brand has been severely diluted as a result. A small company, Fobis does not have the time or resources to patrol all third party Wiimote buzz to protect their trademark. Offers to sell the Weemote name to Nintendo have also been rejected.
The article raises many questions about intellectual property and trademark protection in the age of the internet. At what point does buzz become infringement? And how can small companies protect their trademarks in these situations?
How do you think the issue should be resolved?
Contributed by: Maghan Cook