The Branding Of Language

"Do you Yahoo?"

"Did you Xerox the report?"

"Did you FedEx it?"

"Did you see the messenger Rollerblading?"

It's the branding of language.

Once upon a time, using a brand name as a verb was anathema. It was behavior that would drive a trademark lawyer crazy.
But more and more marketers are deciding that the grand slam of branding is to become part of the language - in effect, having your trademark substitute in everyday usage for the type of action or service that your mark identifies. Could there be, they argue, any clearer expression of a leadership position?

We saw a restaurant review recently which mentioned a purveyor who "FedExes her Maine lobsters" to a top chef. The appearance of that ersatz verb does not necessarily mean the purveyor is actually using the services of the FedEx Corporation. (The lobsters could be coming via UPS or DHL.) The point is, they're being shipped overnight - and to say "to FedEx" is to darn near say the same thing.

"Have you Windexed your windows?"

"Did you get your house Terminexed?"

"The drains were Roto-Rootered."

When brand names enter mainstream language, they often "lend an air of reality to a story," to quote the stylebook of the Associated Press. ("He fished a Camel from his shirt pocket may be preferable to the less specific cigarette," says the style guide.)

Why?

Because fishing a Camel from a shirt pocket - instead of a Newport Light - or wearing Nikes into the lecture hall - instead of Keds -- tells you something about the protagonist. Such is the scope and impact of brand associations.

The internet generation, increasingly casual about the protectability of names, is leading the way in the branding of language. "Do you Yahoo?" is not the rallying cry of users; it's the clarion call of the company itself, in mass media messages costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Similarly, you hear talk now about "googling" (using the popular search engine google.com) to get a line on something or somebody.

"MountainDew me," kids will say at a party.

Once upon a time, this sort of trademark flippancy would turn trademark lawyers apoplectic. Use the brand name generically, they would warn, and you lose - over time - your trademark rights. 'Tis true. Look up common words such as "aspirin" or "escalator" in the dictionary and you'll realize they were once registered trademarks.

But that transition takes time. Decades. And in today's hyperactive world, marketers are more concerned about getting known now, today, immediately -- than losing their naming rights later on.

Which is why they often encourage the use of their precious brand names as everyday words.

Read more...

Starbucks - The coffee giant under attack?

Since founding an entire industry around brewed coffee 15 years ago, Starbucks has enjoyed roaring success - and the success continues. The third quarter results in 2007 showed that the revenues increased 20% to US$2.4 billion and net income increased 9% to US$158.3 million.
But as always, such success attracts competitors. Starbucks has no dearth of competitors. McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts and Burger King are some of the fiercest of competitors of Starbucks in the United States. So serious are these other players that a 2007 Consumer Reports' head to head comparison of coffee from all these four brands declared McDonald's the winner. McDonald's, a new entrant into the coffee sector beat Starbucks. Such reports beg the question: Is Starbucks under attack?
Competition is the reality of business. Successful companies and their brands have always attracted competition. Well managed companies have always thwarted such competition and have succeeded. But in this case, it is not just competition. An underlying change in Starbucks' main customer base is altering the strategic landscape for the coffee giant.
Affluent women and professionals earning an average US$92,000 a year were the core customer base of Starbucks. These customers bought the Starbucks' idea of coffee with a context rather than just a product. As such, they were not too price sensitive. But over the years, Starbucks' quest for growth both within the United States and also globally has acquired a new set of customers. Compared to the original group, this new generation of customers is less educated, less affluent and more price sensitive. To complicate the matter further, many of the aforementioned competitors have decided to compete on price. Given the combination of factors, Starbucks seems to be under attack.
What can Starbucks do to retain the leadership position? For starters, Starbucks will have to strengthen the brand, its brand equity and its many touch points. In many affluent cities in the US such as New York City and Boston, Starbucks outlets get too crowded and customers just walk out to a competitors' café. That has to be corrected right away. More importantly, Starbucks should focus the attention once again on the brand experience. Starbucks is not just about a cup of coffee, but is about the ambience, a third alternative between home and work. Such a focus on the overall brand experience will divert the customers from a singular focus on price.
Finally, Starbucks should launch new products (new combinations of coffee) to cater to its changing base of customers. These actions should allow Starbucks to continue to have a strong hold on the coffee market, refresh its brand and gain new territory for its brand equity.

Read more...