Brand Naming

A tip of the hat to UC Santa Cruz linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum, posting at Language Log:

“NEVER use a trademark as a verb”, said the International Trademark Association very firmly (in a web page that has now been removed, but they still publish very similar advice in a PDF brochure you can get here); “Trademarks are products or services, never actions.” As I remarked in this post, they barely know what they’re talking about when it comes to grammar (trademarks are never products or services; they are nouns denoting products or services), and most companies, despite paying lip service to the rules, don’t even follow the rules themselves. A spectacular example occurs in The New Yorker this week, on page 67. Under the face of a sheepish-looking young woman is the legend, “OK, so I Zappos at work.” And the advertisment adds, “Check out our outstanding service and massive selection of shoes and apparel and you’ll Zappos, too.” So they can use their trademark as a verb; it’s just you who shouldn’t. Just ignore the trademark prescriptivists; to hell with them. Zappos your shoes, xerox your copies, hoover the floor. Tell them all they can sue you.

When your marketing and legal departments are operating at cross-purposes, common sense should prevail. You want your customer to use your name as a verb; it means your brand owns your category. That’s what’s known as a great problem to have!

The Cruise Log, USA Today’s “port of call for cruising news and trends,” recently discussed the cruising industry’s startling lack of imagination when it comes time to christen a new ship:

• Crown (Princess) and Crown (Norwegian)
• Dawn (Princess) and Dawn (Norwegian)
• Dream (Norwegian) and Dream (Carnival)
• Freedom of the Seas (Royal Caribbean) and Freedom (Carnival)
• Jewel of the Seas (Royal Caribbean) and Jewel (Norwegian)
• Legend (Carnival) and Legend of the Seas (Royal Caribbean)
• Magic (Disney) and Magic (Carnival)
• Pride (Carnival) and Pride (Norwegian)
• Sinfonia (MSC Cruises) and Symphony (Crystal Cruises)
• Splendour of the Seas (Royal Caribbean) and Splendor (Carnival)
• Star (Princess) and Star (Norwegian)

What’s going on here?  Three things, I think.  First, there’s the weight of nautical tradition. Second, this appears to be a clear-cut case of naming by focus group, an approach which inevitably yields a name that “sounds like a cruise ship” — like every other cruise ship, that is. Third, I suspect the cruise ship industry, like the theme park industry, suffers from the understandable but dangerous desire to be all things to all people.

It’s particularly surprising that Caribbean has fallen prey to these temptations, since they position themselves as the “fun ship” line.  Kudos to Holland America for hewing to an even older tradition, naming its ships after the Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Oosterdam.

The Washington Post has a fun little story on the ever-growing number of music and movie celebrities who are committed to extending their personal brands beyond the entertainment industry and into the realms of fashion and fragrance. Can you name the celebrities behind the following fashion brands (clues in parentheses)?

• L.A.M.B. (named after her best-selling CD, Love. Angel. Music. Baby.)
• Sweetface
• Princy (named after her father’s nickname for her)
• House of Dereon (named after her late grandmother, Agnez Dereon)
• Twenty8Twelve (named after her birth date, 12/28)

The answers are:

• L.A.M.B. — Gwen Stefani
• Sweetface — Jennifer Lopez
• Princy — Jessica Simpson
• House of Dereon — Beyoncé
• Twenty8Twelve — Sienna Miller

It may not be much of a jump from celebrity to fashion icon, but the usual caveats of brand extension apply:

You’ll want to give your new fashion brand its own identity, breathing life into it rather than naming it after yourself. Your fans normally want to live your lifestyle, not be you, and this brand strategy enables your line to flourish independently, more or less unaffected by the ups and downs of your entertainment career.

That said, your designs should reflect your own sense of style. In other words, you should actually want to wear your own brand — not all the time, but often enough that we know it’s “you.”  Otherwise, you risk being a fashion fad, not a brand.

My prediction for the next big celeb-turned-fashion-brand? Fergie.

BusinessWeek has an intelligent story on the recent decision of Binney & Smith (a subsidiary of Hallmark) to rename itself after its most familiar brand — Crayola.  This is one of those rare cases where the experts all seem to agree — it’s a strong, confident move by a company on a roll.

Crayola is one of the world’s great invented brand names, in the same league as Kodak, Oreo, and Google. Edwin Binney’s wife, Alice, coined the term from the French word craie ‘chalk’ (the source of our word crayon) plus the affix -ola (a clipped form of the word oleaginous ‘oil-like’ — think Mazola). 

While we’re talking Hollywood, what are your out-of-the-gate picks for the best titles of 2007?  You can see my early favorites — and the Los Angeles Times’ nominees – on our entertainment branding blog, Let’s Talk Story.

I suppose when it comes to groceries I’m a brand slut.  I shop at the local farmer’s market for specialty produce, Whole Foods for healthy stuff, Trader Joe’s for something different, Vons and Ralphs for everyday meals, Marukai for Asian and Hawaiian food, and Costco for bulk items.

Anyway, after a great deal of trial and error, I’ve learned how to shop at Costco — without bringing home a bunch of stuff we’ll never finish up, that is.  Lately, my favorite Costco buy is a box of Cuties® brand California Clementines. Also known as a mikan, satsuma, or Christmas orange, a clementine is a delicious little easy-to-peel variety of seedless mandarin.

I’m not a big fan of your garden-variety orange, but Cuties are just right.  I love the expressive name, the cute logo, and the just-right five-pound box they come in. It seems like a nice step back to the “good old days” of the early 20th century, when California citrus came packaged in crates adorned with the most elaborate and colorful labels imaginable. It’s good to see more and more of our local growers are rediscovering the art of branding.

Mincing no words, PC Magazine has selected The Worst Technology Names … Ever. In the Worst Product Names category, the winners (or losers, if you prefer) are:

• DigiScent iSmell
• Ogio Shling
• Burning Love Pouch
• Verizon G’zOne
• Pentax *ist Series
• Nintendo Wii
• iMuffs Bluetooth headphones
• Samsung Yepp MP3 player
• Tivoli Audio iYiYiYi stereo system for the iPod
• Zizzle iZ
• Nabaztag (special mention)
• Shuganano (special mention)

In the Worst Application Names category, their picks are:

• Crush or Flush
• Pikipimp
• GIMP
• eefoof
• GigaTribe
• Zamzar
• Grazr
• Reaktor 5 (et al.)
• Joost
• Gubb

Of course it’s a lot easier to mock a bad name (PC Magazine?) than to create a great one, but you do have to wonder what in the world they were thinking in most of these cases.

In the interest of fair play, here’s my quick defense of a few of these:

Although I suspect I’d have taken a different creative tack, strategically speaking the Wii name has done a good job of positioning Nintendo’s platform as the fun, “let’s just play” alternative to the more hardcore PlayStation and Xbox systems.

Joost is at least a better name than Skype!

iYiYi is clearly a play on the iPod brand and the Spanish interjection “ay, ay, ay” — something the PC Magazine editors missed altogether.

There’s nothing wrong with the Reaktor name; it’s a fine name.  Native Instruments, the creator of Reaktor 5, is a German company; reaktor is the German equivalent of reactor. Do your homework, PC Magazine!

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer has ruled that Victoria’s Secret has the right to prevent Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Audrey Quock from launching a line of lingerie called ‘SEXY LITTLE THINGS,’ ruling that the lingerie giant has a prior claim on the phrase.

In his 17 page ruling, Judge Baer decided that ‘SEXY LITTLE THINGS’ is a suggestive mark (which often can be protected) rather than a descriptive mark (which generally cannot):

While the term describes the erotically stimulating quality of the trademarked lingerie, it also calls to mind the phrase “sexy little thing,” popularly used to refer to attractive lithe young women.

I have to agree with Judge Baer - the phrase ‘SEXY LITTLE THINGS’ is definitely suggestive! (Reposted)