The photo below pretty much says it all.

Assitalia is one of the biggest insurance companies in Italy. I am sure the company developed its name without thinking about international considerations. In Italy, the name is probably fine. But if they ever wanted to expand to an English speaking country…well, let’s just say there might be a problem.

Most companies for which I develop names for insist that I do some sort of name verification to ensure that the names I develop have no problematic connotations in the major foreign languages. Clearly, Assitalia never thought of that!

During this time of year you see a lot of use of Xmas as a substitute for Christmas. Now I will stay out of the religious debate that claims Xmas is the work of the devil because it essentially “X”s out Christ. While there are some references that indicate X was a substitute for Christ as far back as the 15th century, there does not appear to be any evil intent. Words such as Xian for Christian and Xmas for Christmas were commonly used as abbreviations to cut down the printing cost. Most derivations of Xmas come from “X representing the Greek letter Chi” the first letter in Χριστός (Christos) “Christ.”

Nevertheless, why do we use Xmas?

Are we lazy? Is it really too much trouble to spell out Christmas? When you talk you say “Christmas” not “Xmas.”

Has Xmas crept into common usage to the point where it will eventually substitute for Christmas everywhere except the Oxford English Dictionary? Will Christmas be like “Ye” or “Olde” and used only when referring to something ancient?

Do we need something shorter for our Twitter updates?

Most style guides will say that Xmas is unacceptable for all except the most informal uses.

I guess that means you can still Twitter Xmas!

Every Sunday I go through the circulars in the paper looking for new products.  I usually spend a lot of time with the ads from the national drug store chains (Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid).  Recently, I observed that each chain seems to have a radically different philosophy on store brand naming.  And while this observation isn’t earth shattering, it exposes the marketing strategies (or lack thereof) of each chain.

For example, check out the allergy section.  The big brand names like Benadryl®, Claritin® and Zyrtec® all have store brand/private label competition.  Walgreens naming protocol for its store brand is pretty straightforward and seems to be designed to help a consumer find the Walgreens knockoff of the branded product.  You can buy Wal-dryl, Wal-itin, and Wal-zyr, and the packaging is color coded to make it easier.  This is a very consistent strategy that is designed to make life easier for the consumer and also designed to build the “Wal-“ prefix as a brand.

At CVS, you have to be a well-informed consumer or a doctor to get it right because CVS attempts to align symptoms with branding.  For example, the CVS version of Benadryl is called Allergy, while the CVS version of Claritin is called Non-Drowsy Allergy Relief (non-drowsy being a key benefit of the active ingredient in Claritin), and the Zyrtec knockoff product is called Indoor/Outdoor Allergy Relief (Zyrtec is the only brand with indoor/outdoor allergy claims).

At Rite Aid, you almost have to be a pharmacist to get the right brand.  The first branded product to go generic was Benadryl and Rite Aid called the knockoff Rite Aid Allergy Medication.  When the next generation allergy drugs went generic, Rite Aid had to improvise and so now you need to know the active ingredient to get the right brand (Rite Aid Loratidine and Rite Aid Cetirizine for Claritin and Zyrtec respectively). 

How about gastrointestinal products?  Looking at four big brands, Zantac®, Metamucil®, Pepto-Bismol®, and MiraLAX®, and their knockoff brands at the drug chains show inconsistency at all three chains:

Branded: Zantac; Metamucil; Pepto-Bismol; MiraLAX
Walgreens: Wal-Zan; Wal-Mucil; Soothe; SmoothLAX
CVS: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber Laxative; Stomach Relief; PureLAX
Rite Aid: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber; Pink Bismuth; Laxative

So what is going on here?  Walgreens, which appeared to be building the “Wal-“ prefix as its store brand champion, seems to have abandoned that philosophy in some parts of the store.  CVS, which had been focusing on product benefits, gets dragged down into generic category descriptors in gastrointestinals.  And Rite Aid is all over the place.

Doesn’t anyone worry about having a consistent branding strategy for the store brand?  It sure would make life easier for us confused consumers!  Hey Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid…if you need some naming help, I’m available!

- Mark Prus (mark.prus (at) nameflash (dot) info), NameFlashSM (www (dot) nameflash (dot)info)
 

In the spring of 1971, a new marketing idea was hatched.  Today, over 38 years later, the idea is still the most important thing you can do to achieve marketing success.

In an ad in the April 7, 1971 New York Times, David Ogilvy outlined his 38 points for creating “advertising that sells.”  He called the #1 item on the list “the most important decision.”  He went on to say that “the results of your campaign depend less on how we write your advertising than on how your product is positioned.”

His message was clear…you need to start with a clear positioning for your product.  With a clear positioning, you can establish your marketing territory versus your competitors.  Without a clear positioning, you will forever struggle to establish your marketing message.

How can an idea that was conceived almost 40 years ago still be relevant?  David Shenk, in his book Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut, estimated that a consumer was exposed to 560 advertising messages per day in 1971.  Shenk estimated that number had grown to over 3000 per day by 1997.

But the world today is even more complex and consumers get exposed to more frequent messages on traditional vehicles like TV and radio (now we have :15, :10, and even :05 second advertising).  Plus we have a whole new world of marketing messaging using modern tools like computers, cell phones, social networks, podcasts, etc.

So is it any wonder that the “positioning” message is more important today than it was 38 years ago?  Consumers are bombarded with marketing messages.  If your message is not framed by a crystal clear positioning, your message will fade into the background and all of your marketing efforts will fail.

What are the keys to developing your product’s positioning?

First of all, I highly recommend reading the “positioning Bible” which is the book Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, written by Al Reis and Jack Trout.  This is one of the best marketing books ever written, and I learned the craft of developing clear positioning statements by reading this book.

But to “cut to the chase,” the concept of a clear positioning is very simple.  You need to own “one word” in the mind of a consumer, and you need to make sure that word is competitively viable and achievable in your marketing plan (i.e., your competitors cannot own it and you can afford to own it).

Here is an example.  In a world of colas, 7-Up decided it wanted to be the “Un-Cola.”  One word that drove its marketing messaging for years (and double digit sales gains I might add).  It was simple, direct, and memorable.  It was also appropriate for their product and easy to own without breaking the bank on marketing.

Think Mac versus PC.  Mac owns “cool” and that defines their marketing effort.

So ask yourself, if you have an established product…what positioning do you already own, and what positioning do you want to own?  If you are just starting to launch a product, what positioning do you want to own in the minds of consumers?

If you get the positioning right, the marketing will practically design itself! 

- Mark Prus (mark.prus@nameflash.info), NameFlashSM (www.nameflash.info)
 

Full disclosure…I own Google stock.  I like their products and their potential.  However, I am more than a bit concerned about how they use their names and trademarks.

Microsoft® names its products in a traditional fashion.  Microsoft is the company; names like Windows, Silverlight, Bing are clearly the products.  A very logical naming architecture that makes it clear where the company ends and the product begins.

Google is a company and a trademark for several goods and services.  The Google trademark is perhaps best know for “Search engine services” (International Class 042) but Google can also be “Dissemination of advertising for others via the Internet” (IC 035) or “Telecommunication services” (IC 038) or “Financial services” (IC 036) or any of a number of different product or service ideas that carry the name Google.

Add other words to Google and you get more products and services…things like Google Checkout; Google Talk; Google Wave; the list goes on and on.  And a trip through Google Labs made me wonder if there really is an overriding naming architecture for the Google Brand.  

I think the heart of the issue is Google’s youth…let’s not forget that their IPO was only 5 years ago (August 19, 2004 if you are planning a celebration).  Google appears to follow a primary rule of the Internet as stated on the Google website: “At Google, we believe in launching early and often.”  Obviously the “put something out there and see if it works” strategy has been working for them.  But to apply a similar philosophy to names is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Look at Microsoft and the fiasco known as Vista.  The product was launched as Windows Vista, and quickly unraveled to the point where Microsoft had to get Windows 7 out the door quickly as a replacement.  What failure did consumers have in their minds?  Vista.  Vista was known as a dog to be avoided at all costs.  Not “Microsoft” or even “Microsoft Vista”.  Vista.

What if Google had launched Vista?  OK, it probably never would have happened but work with me here.  Following their most obvious naming architecture, they probably would have called it Google Vista.  And as it failed, the black eye would have extended to the Google Brand, which might have resulted in a lower Google stock price in the short term until people had a better experience with the Google name.  Microsoft had collateral damage with Vista…Google Vista would have hit an artery.

The recent announcement that Google was going to begin advertising its Google Apps as a better alternative to Microsoft Office pushed me over the edge.  In this blog there were several recent postings about “Verbing” brand names and the risks that are inherent in that effort.  Google has “benefitted” by “Verbing” over the years in search (“Let’s Google It”).  With their new ad campaign, Google found a way to weaken the trademarks of its company and products all in one swoop by telling people what “Going Google” means.

As a marketer, I love the idea of “Going Google” as much as I love owning “Let’s Google It.”  However, I fear that from a naming and trademark perspective, this is not going to make any of the Google trademarks stronger and in fact runs the risk of weakening them.  When you add in the blatant implication of monopoly (I suppose when you “Go Google” there is no turning back), I am worried even more.  Remember, the Department of Justice investigated Google as a potential monopoly earlier this year.

I am not trying to bring down the Empire…far from it (again, remember I am a shareholder).  But I would love to understand what Google is trying to do with its many names and trademarks.  Is there a plan?  Or is the Google Brand a victim of the “launch early and often” practice?  That has clearly worked to date in building a big business.  Is it Best Practice in naming?  Will it continue to work in the future?

- Mark Prus (mark.prus@nameflash.info), NameFlashSM (www.nameflash.info)

How David Can Beat Goliath in Naming OTC Medicines

After 25+ years in the highly competitive world of OTC medicines, I’ve learned some things about naming products.  One thing I’ve learned is you have to understand the “Goliaths” of the category and zig when they zag.

Many OTC categories are dominated by brands that have been building equity for 50+ years.  Brands like TUMS® (75+ years) and Bayer® Aspirin (100+ years) are Goliaths because they are well positioned, satisfy consumer needs, and have had consistent marketing support.  Should you study these historical successes?  You bet.  People buy these brands for a reason.  Find it.  Exploit it if you can with a name of your own.

Another Goliath is the constant influx of new Rx-To-OTC switches.  Brands like Advil® (introduced 1984), Claritin® (1993) and Prilosec® OTC (2003) are “switch Goliaths” that turned categories upside down. 

Sometimes the switch carries the prescription name into the OTC market (e.g., Claritin) and sometimes it does not (e.g., Advil for the generic ibuprofen).  If the entire Rx franchise is switching (as in Claritin), then the Rx name is usable…and who would walk away from the years of Rx equity building by changing the name?  Sometimes a portion of the Rx brand will remain Rx which means the OTC version must have a different name or carry a suffix to differentiate the OTC brand from the Rx brand (e.g., Prilosec® OTC).  Sometimes a product is launched through a licensing deal where the manufacturer wants to retain the Rx name or perhaps the Rx name has “baggage” associated with it that the new company wants to avoid (as was the case for alli® instead of Xenical® the Rx name).  The FDA will still have its say on the name, but the company has more flexibility to name the product.

“Switch Goliaths” have extremely deep pockets and intensely loyal customers.  The switch brings new users into the category from the Rx franchise and they do not pass GO…they go straight to the ingredient/brand that they know and love.  This process short circuits the decision-making process and really gives unfair advantage from a naming perspective. 

A final Goliath is the huge investment that pharmaceutical companies make in the consumer marketplace for their Rx products.  Prilosec® (the Rx product) outspent the entire OTC stomach remedy category by 2 to 1.  These 900 pound Goliaths are dancing on a daily basis, and you’ve got to be aware of their dance steps lest you get squashed like a bug.

How can David beat Goliath?  You really have to understand the market dynamics in your particular category and formulate a naming strategy based on what you learn.

If your category has strong historical brands, you can leverage this and make your new brand look like the next generation.  The best example of this was the introduction of Advil, who used a timeline to show that first there was aspirin, then Tylenol®, and now there is Advil, Advanced Medicine for Pain™.  A modern, contemporary name might be the ticket to success.

If you are competing against numerous Rx products in your category, you cannot out gun them, but you can emulate them.  I once developed the name “Provia” for an OTC GI product.  It sounded so much like a product with an Rx heritage that many consumers swore the product was already on the market and it was a terrific product because it used to be Rx.  It was memorable because it had strong Rx cues.

OTC medicines are a difficult naming category with numerous Goliaths.  You can win by remembering that “when underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win” according to political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft, who concluded that Davids beat Goliaths 71.5% of the time, as noted  by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker last month (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell). 

- Mark Prus (mark.prus@nameflash.info), NameFlashSM (www.nameflash.info)