My family and I walk by this tiny church on our way to the grocery store all the time. And while I’d always noticed the odd architecture of the place, advice it was only recently that I took a second look and was struck by the name.
Big promise + tiny package = big let-down
Now I know that a “cathedral” is technically where the bishop has his headquarters, viagra so in the case of a little splinter denomination like this, this really is their cathedral. But for the neighbours, calling this a “cathedral” stretches the bounds of credibility. As a matter of fact, in referring to this building, I’d never use the term “cathedral” unless I wanted to make someone laugh. Cathedrals are massive, ornate, and architecturally significant features in a cityscape; this is just a little local church on a quiet side street.
But that’s just an example where the descriptive name doesn’t fit…
Why would you choose a descriptive name?
On the plus side, when such a name really does describe your product, you can expend less effort explaining it. So if your company is called “International Ball Bearings” and your competitors are “MMT Inc.” and “ACME Inc.” and your target happens to be in the market for ball bearings, you have a quick leg up on the others, even if they make the same product.
A descriptive name can also convey corporate seriousness and solidity. A company named “American Apparel” will have to go a long way to damage that respectable first impression: although give them credit for trying.
The downside
The problem is: what if all three companies mentioned above also made carriage bolts, and that’s what a customer was looking for? They’d probably assume International Ball Bearings wasn’t for them, right? So while a descriptive name communicates more information faster, it’s also much less flexible. You can’t sell toothpaste if your name is Canada Shipping Lines.
“Purely descriptive” is also a bad word in Trademark law, as it essentially means “cannot be protected”.
But there’s a time and a place for descriptiveness
In my naming work, I have often recommended descriptive names: Canada Business for example as a name for a government service for business. Descriptive product names are also appropriate for companies using a corporate “master brand” model. Recently, Bell very wisely dumped its Sympatico and ExpressVU names in favour of “Bell Internet” and “Bell TV”. And the world breathed a sigh of relief.
The trick as always, is balance. So how do you achieve this? The easy answer is hire Brandvelope Consulting. But whatever you do, look at the brand in its complete context, and particularly how it fits into the bigger “brandscape” that your customers are facing.
Basically, it’s a way of allowing IE users to access some Google technologies that Explorer doesn’t support. TechCrunch says:
Yes, it’s both hilarious and awesome (or hilariously awesome, if you will) that Google seems to dislike IE so much that it has spent its own time improving it. Google claims its goals are noble. Talking to Group Product Manager Mike Smith and Software Engineer Alex Russell, they tell us that they simply want to make a more seamless web experience for both web users and developers.
Is that the sound of (somewhat) evil genius laughter I hear in the distance?
This hip young Google engineer couldn’t possibly be the face of evil could he? Look again at his shirt. Is that a giant mutated monster about to gobble up a helpless little browser… er… victim?
But I’ll warn you, it’s a lot of information, and you’ll have to wade through some sections knee-deep in self-congratulatory hype. So as a public service, I’ve distilled 10 aspects of the list that jump out for me (below).
n The past year for the financial industry in one concise picture.
This year, ING crashed right off the list, along with a few other financial industry stalwarts.
(Image from the Dutch-language blog www.molblog.nl/bericht/interbrand-top100-/)
(But first, a slightly bitchy side note to Interbrand: guys, if you’re going to release these three days early, please 1) skip the giant countdown clock , and 2) actually send notices to people that signed up. Okay, my chest is clear, on to…)
10 Highlights of the 2009 Best Global Brands
1) Coke is still it: Top five brands are unchanged
The top five brands on the list are exactly the same brands in the same order as last year, and although Microsoft and GE lost more value than most brands ever have, with the spread in value between the top four, those mega-brands don’t look likely to change anytime soon.
Nokia’s brand is losing steam however, while gaining ground behind it is Google (in a big way) and McDonald’s (growing, but more modestly).
2) Google is the big disruptor
The Google brand shouldered ahead of Toyota, Intel, and Disney, and now is very close to overtaking McDonalds. As a matter of fact, its brand value has almost doubled since 2007, when it was 20th in the rankings.
Think about that for a moment: “Google” has grown from geek-niche-buzzword to #7 brand in the world in just 10 years – growth rates we haven’t seen since, well, Microsoft pulled the same trick for the ten-odd years before that.
But now that Google is starting to look more and more like a big, aggressive company (because they are), can their brand sustain its quirky garage-band appeal? Already their “don’t be evil” internal mantra is attracting more cynicism than praise. And while Googlers are still innovating, and making a lot of feel-good noise with their open source projects, one wonders when critical mass and inertia kick in (see Microsoft?).
3) Other big winners this year
By dollar value gained, H&M, Ikea, and Amazon gained a solid amount of value this year.
But apart from the indominatable Google, Apple grew the most, adding an incredible $1.7 Billion in brand value. Apple is the darling of the branding industry of course and a favourite of mine (see my Steve Jobs tribute), with its creative energy and focus on human-friendly products and messaging, so it’s heartening to see that doing it right by your customers still pays off during a recession.
4) Surprise! Financial institutions are the biggest losers
Have you heard about this recession thing? Well, if you have, then it should come as no surprise that the industry hardest hit in the brand value bottom line was the same industry that imploded and begged for (and received) massive government bailouts.
American Express, Morgan Stanley, and HSBC all lost billions of dollars of brand value, while Citi and embattled Swiss giant UBS both lost half of their brand value in one year. Several others dropped right off the list, including Merryl Lynch, AIG, and ING. Could it be a coincidence that many of these losers also have meaningless nomonyms for names (see my definition here)? Probably just a coincidence, but their names certainly didn’t help them.
5) Automobile brands: losing value
Also not surprising, every automotive or motorized equipment manufacturer on the list except Ferrari lost a significant amount of brand value this year. Harley Davidson and Lexus lost the largest percentages.
But despite losses, a few brands managed to hold their own or gain ground. Apart from Ferrari, Audi managed to gain, while Ford kept its ranking – the only one of the “Big Three” American manufacturers to have a substantial corporate brand seems to have benefited from its perceived stability as well. Another star: Hyundai:
Hyundai boosted ad spending and aggressively promoted its Assurance program, which allows buyers who lose their jobs to return cars. Hyundai’s brand value slipped 5%, but it moved up three places to No. 69. – Business Week.
6) Food and clothing: the basics still sell when times are bad
You can download the whole Interbrand report here.Comfort food standards Campbells soup and Burger King appeared for the first time, while all the other Big Food brands gained in the rankings – Nestlé, Heinz, Pepsi, Kellogg’s, and Danone. Restaurants KFC and Pizza Hut creeped ahead a few positions, while Starbucks lost 16% of its brand value and fell five spots.
The same pattern held true for clothing brands – although it must be said that the list is incredibly top-heavy with luxury brands – so Gucci, not GAP; Rolex over Timex. I suspect that this is because of a) the weighting given to “brand premium”, that is, the amount consumers are willing to spend over and above competitors, and b) the fact that lower-priced clothing brands for us mere mortals tend to be less global.
7) Adobe: New kids on the branding block
Abode finally made the list after it “recorded record revenue and double-digit growth for the sixth consecutive year. They weren’t immune to the downturn (they lost money overall), but importantly from a brand perspective, they grew strongly in the consumer preference category. And their brand awareness continues to grow through the ubiquity of their consumer-facing products Flash, and the Acrobat / PDF line.
8 ) Brand USA – still the biggest brand builder
We were watching to see if the recession would dent the US dominance in global brands. With 52 brands on the 2o08 global 100, the Yanks are the uncontested branding champs, but those of us who were hoping for a moment of guilty schadenfreude were mostly disappointed that the US claims 51 – still a majority – of the 100.
Note to the rest of the planet: keep working.
9) No new countries
The names of countries in the Global branding club stayed exactly the same this year with only 9 brands coming from outside Europe and North America (Japan 7, Korea 2). Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world have yet to break in. But of course, it’s only a matter of time.
10) Brand Canada: maintaining numbers, but losing ground
Both of our two Canadian contender brands Thomson Reuters and Blackberry grew this year, and both made gains in the rankings with Blackberry jumping 10 spots to number 63. But they weren’t joined by any other brands, and what’s worse, we slipped a rank in number of brands-per-capita when the UK added a brand and vaulted ahead of us. On that list, we were 10th; now we’re llth.
Monday, page I wrote Six Reasons “Social Media” needs another name, Tuesday, why we’re probably stuck with it and yesterday, riffed a bit more on on the “socialness” of social media Today, I’d hoped to present a concise list of alternative terms – with some help from a few fellow bloggers and influencers. But the deeper I dug, the more potential candidates I found, and the more I wanted to write about all of them. So in the interest of space and time (and still doing stuff people pay me for), I’ll present just three, and add a few more on Friday.
1) “New Media”
This was suggested by Suzanna Stinnett who agrees with me that “Social Media” is “a limp and lifeless term.” As an alternative, she suggests “New Media”. And to add weight to her argument, certainly you’ll hear this one a lot out there.
I ran a comparison of hits for the two terms on GoogleFight.com. S+M is clobbering N+M.
I use it interchangeably with S+M myself, but mostly when speaking in old-school marketing and advertising camps as a broader term than “Social Media” – and as a way of contrasting it with “old media”. Check out how the term is used on the home page of Chris Brogan’s Inbound Marketing Summit, and he’s not normally shy about the “S” word.
But sorry Suzanna, I’m not buying your argument that “new” is a term that can apply forever. The Model T was “new”, but even then “horseless carriage” worked better for its time. New was never a meaningful modifier in the New Coke name – although I won’t blame that one on the name.
The biggest problem: “new” doesn’t capture what is new about it: primarily the senses that this is about two-way communication, narrower focus, and greater customization.
2) Web 2.0 (or Media 2.0, PR 2.0, anything with a “2.0” at the end)
Okay quick, before your eyes glaze over, I know that “Web 2.0” is an incredibly over-used – now dated – buzzword. And it has been applied by tech-heads to an entire range of Web tools, many of which didn’t deserve it. So while “Web 2.0” is bigger than “Social Media”, to my eye, the current discussions around Social Media is just the application of the Web 2.0 mindset to communications.
So what about Web 2.0 is like Social Media? Well, you could read the definition by the term’s inventor Tim O’Reilly or this slightly more accessible one by Paul Graham , and I owe a debt to Ottawa-based tech Web-tech guru Oliver Harte for distilling this enormous concept down to three simple elements (which I’ll re-package slightly to apply to communications) :
Capability: online tools are increasingly powerful, easy to use, and easy to customize.
Interactivity: information flows two ways – old monologues become dialogue.
Accountability: as the power shifts, companies find themselves in the passenger seat, and need to be more humble, human even.
The biggest problem: it’s just too… well… too-point-oh.
3) (Web) Content Management System
This term is usually applied to tools that make it easy for people to update their own Web sites. But let’s face it, “social networking” tools like Twitter, YouTube, WordPress or Linked-In are really just a macro version of the same idea. They let average hacks with no programming skills create content, share it with the world, and connect it to other content (and people) out there.
The biggest problem: But of course, it’s way too narrow and descriptive to challenge “Social Media”. But perhaps some word nerd out there can hotwire a new combination? We wait with bated breath.
Customer needs (not buying patterns) should drive all marketing.
Marketers need to map their activities to buying behaviour.
Social media customer relations won’t fix core problems.
Influencers aren’t as important as Enthusiasts. Nice!
Think about your customers’ enthusiasm for you – and your status with them – as currency (“Whuffie”).
You can find out more about all this at Tara’s blog.
Back to the “Social” in Social Media
But while Tara’s ideas had my synapses firing and my head nodding furiously, one thing she said took me back. In one of her opening slides she put these words on the screen “Social Media is about… being social.”
I totally get what Tara was saying of course, which was that today, people associate these tools with social (as in largely free-time) connections and less with work-related activities, and not at all with connecting to companies. She uses the chart (right) to bolster her argunment.
I also agree with her point that the impulse to use social media is based on basic human neural wiring that propels us to reach out to like-minded humans to form tribes / communities / clusters of information / what have you.
So two questions I’m thinking about:
Saying “Social Media is about… being social” is an apt description of the way things are today, but is it the way things have to be?
Maybe this is where we as business communicators and particularly branders have to look at a chart like this and say “we have a lot of work to do” before people take these tools seriously.
![web-2-0-revolution[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.begtodiffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/web-2-0-revolution1.jpg?resize=600%2C300&ssl=1 "web-2-0-revolution[1]")
. Here are a few thoughts.
