Archive for the ‘Branding’ Category

HEY EVERYBODY!  Our Pizza Tastes Like Cardboard! 

Trash Talking Your Own Product

Um…well…yes it does actually, and your sauce tastes like ketchup.  That’s why I haven’t eaten your pizza since my daughter's 10th birthday when it snowed 3 feet and you were the only place open.

The new Domino's Pizza ad campaign explains that they listened to consumer feedback and completely redesigned their pizza based on that information. The video clip shows some focus group feedback that is pretty painful. The obvious question is…what took you so long? The pizza had been lousy for years and I am sure focus groups (if you did them) have been telling you that for years!

Nevertheless, the ad begs the question…is it smart to throw rocks at yourself? Competitors have been throwing rocks at Domino's for years…why reinforce that negative image?

The big risk is that your current consumer base obviously likes your pizza, so why radically change it? If you check out some consumer feedback about the new pizza, you will see that many fans of Domino's are not happy by the spicier sauce and garlicky crust.

Will the ads create a ton of interest in trying the "new" pizza? Obviously that is the hope of Domino's. And I am sure some marketing geek has produced a model that shows the benefits outweigh the potential downside.

In this case, I think it is a pretty good move. You cannot stay stagnant in this environment, and Domino's has to continue to grow. You must improve your base product because you can only introduce things like "Breadbowl Pasta" once in a while. I think the general response from non-users of Domino's will be "the pizza can't be any worse that it was." But will it get them to try it?

Is it smart to throw rocks at yourself?

Stephen Colbert's take on this topic! http://bit.ly/7pIn8A

This falls into the category of "you can't think of everything when naming…can you?"

Something that will crack me up and usually leave others staring at me is what store signage can spell when the bulbs in some of the letters in the names have burnt out.  My personal favorite is from a Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon where somehow the only letters that remained from “Steakhouse and Saloon” were “HO SALOON.” No comments please from people who work at Lone Star as I am not implicating anyone; just thought it was funny!

I’m not saying that you need to evaluate all possible scenarios for burnt out letters in your storefront name—but let’s just say that you might want to keep a large supply of extra light bulbs on hand and check your exterior signage frequently!

A few weeks ago I posted a Twitter Poll (Follow me @NameFlash) to gather opinions on Anti Monkey Butt Powder…Good Name or Bad Name? The results indicated that about 70% of people thought Anti Monkey Butt Powder was a bad name.

However, the real learning came from the comments I received about the post. The people who thought it was a bad name were making fun of the name and talking about how they would never buy such a product. The people who thought it was a good name were people who suffered from what might be described as a “chafed butt” due to extended horseback riding, motorcycle riding, or truck driving. Some of the people who responders were actual consumers of the product and were very defensive about the name—they thought it was perfect!

So what is the lesson on branding? I think the owners of Anti Monkey Butt Powder did a terrific job of connecting with their target market—the problem of having a “chafed butt” is not one that everyone has, but if you do have it, you understand what Anti Monkey Butt Powder is designed to do. If you don’t have this problem, then it really doesn’t matter what you think about the name, because you will never buy this product.

I chose Anti Monkey Butt Powder for the Good Name Bad Name poll because I thought it was a fascinating name, and when the passionate responses came in from people who identified with the product, I came to love the name even more!

So the owners of this store probably think they have a terrific name for their business: “Kids Exchange.” Well I beg to differ. First of all, what is a kids exchange, anyway? What do you do here? Swap your kids out when you get tired of them or turn them in for cash like those gold-buying places that seem to be cropping up everywhere? A naming professional could have helped prevent this confusion.

However, this picture goes one step further—why did they not put a space between the words “Kids” and “Exchange”? Proper capitalization would have been helpful as well. Not sure why this is a problem? Look at it a bit more closely…there it is. These 12 letters could just as easily spell…Kid Sex Change. I don’t think that’s what the store is about, but who am I to judge? Either way, it’s obvious that not only the name, but also the logo and signage could have benefited from professional help.

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!

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)