Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Susan Gunelius

Susan Gunelius

Twitter’s Trademark Stance

twitter_follow_meWhat’s a company like Twitter that is built by its open API development model to do when those same developers who support the product and make it easier for millions and millions of people to use use the Twitter name and look in their applications?  What if they use the word Tweet?

This month, Twitter has responded to developers and tech folks who want to know why the company is suddenly playing hard ball about its trademarks — including ones it doesn’t own yet.  For example, Twitter only applied for the trademark for the word “tweet” in April 2009, but the company is already telling developers to avoid using it in application names.  The company does own the trademark for “Twitter”, and while people are allowed to use the word in application names, etc., Twitter is encouraging people to get more creative with the naming of their own products.  The team behind Twitter is also getting a bit tougher about ensuring third-party applications look distinctively different from the actual Twitter interface.

I think it’s about time that Twitter started to get tougher in protecting its brand trademarks (and acquiring new ones).  There is no doubt that those names carry value, and while it’s important that the developer community and the open nature of Twitter be allowed to thrive, there is no reason that the brand names have to be used so freely.  Using a tagline such as “for Twitter” or “approved by Twitter” to distinguish between applications Twitter actually endorses vs. those that Twitter does not, would be a great way to help Twitter users differentiate between the best apps and to reward Twitter app partners.  Of course, I have no idea if this is something Twitter is interested in getting involved in, but even the simple “for Twitter” tag (rather than using Twitter in the app name) which offers no endorsement at all would work to tell people what the third-party application is for without infringing on trademarks.  

My point is this, protecting your brand assets is imperative.  While the initial buzz over Twitter’s stance on its trademarks was negative (you can read the TechCrunch post here and the Twitter blog post here), I think Twitter is doing the right thing.  What do you think?

Image: Flickr

Tylenol – Brand Rebuilding Part Deux?

tylenol_acetaminophen

Tylenol is one of the best brand rebuilding stories that marketing students in just about every college learn about.  It’s a great example of a company responding to negative publicity (in the case of Tylenol – the worst publicity you can imagine – 7 cyanide poisoning deaths in the 1980s from tampering with Tylenol packaging).  I remember the incident well, and the team behind Tylenol did an amazing job of very quickly regaining consumer trust in the brand.  What could have been the end of a brand that at the time still competed closely with aspirin, became a minor bump in the brand’s growth to become the number one over-the-counter pain reliever.

Today, Tylenol faces a new battle.  This time, the fight is with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who wants to regulate sales of Tylenol by reducing the amount of acetaminophen (the active ingredient) in Tylenol claiming it causes liver damage and possibly making Extra Strength Tylenol available as a prescription only. 

Certainly, sales of Tylenol will go down if the Extra Strength Tylenol product becomes OTC only.  Or will they?  Will consumers actually switch to a different product with a different active ingredient or wait to get a prescription for Extra Strength Tylenol, or will they just take a higher dosage of regular Tylenol?  Is the FDA actually solving the problem?  Or will this be just another small bump in the Tylenol brand story?

Either way, I’m sure the Tylenol team (under the power of Johnson & Johnson – a company that is very, very good at decentralizing and protecting one brand from another at all costs) is already fast at work at a new strategy, should one become necessary if the FDA successfully passes the new regulation it’s proposing.  According to BrandWeek, full-page ads have already appeared in newspapers calling Tylenol the “safest brand of pain reliever you can choose.”  However, it’s a different world now than it was in the 1980s.  The social web is alive and spreading information, news, and rumors faster than ever.  That’s something the Tylenol team didn’t have to think about in the 1980s. 

We’ll have to wait and see how this one develops.  What do you think?  Will this become a big problem for Tylenol, or will the brand rebound with nary a scratch?  Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Image: Flickr

Has Google Lost Focus?

google_chrome_os_microsoftOne of the rules of branding from the classic The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding by Al Ries and Laura Ries is the law of contraction, which tells us that a brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus.  The marketplace is teeming with companies and brands that have lost focus, overexpanded, and are now scrambling to contract to regain brand value.  Think of how popular niche marketing is these days.  There’s a reason — focus can be very powerful.  However, it’s hard to stay focused when stockholders are demanding double digit growth year over year.  As a result, most companies find themselves growing too big and brands find themselves overextended all in an ill-conceived attempt by managers and executives to deliver those expected returns or face the unemployment line.

This week, Google announced the launch of its new web-based operating system — Google Chrome OS.  Google expects Chrome OS will give Microsoft some competition for its Windows operating system that has long owned the market for space on desktops and laptops.  The questions are these:

  1. Will Google succeed in taking a sizeable chunk out of Microsoft’s market share with Google Chrome OS?
  2. Will individuals and/or enterprises make the shift to a web-based open source operating system from Google?
  3. Will Microsoft care or continue to think they’re untouchable?
  4. Is Google forgetting the law of contraction?

It’s hard to say what affect Google Chrome OS will have on the market in 1-year, 3-years or 5-years.  It’s certainly going to be interesting to watch the power players position their products and brands for battle.  On the other hand, it will be equally interesting to see if Google’s expansion beyond what it does best – online search and helping people find relevant information — will be successful at any level. 

Google is a recognized brand name but it’s not perfect.  Will forgetting the law of contraction hurt the brand in the long run?  Again, we’ll have to wait and see.  In the meantime, most consumers are still not satisfied with online search results, but Google seems to be following the path that so many companies before it have done, it’s easier to see dollar signs in expansion than fixing what ails the core brand promise through focus. 

Your thoughts?

Image: Flickr

Google Comes out of Beta

Google Apps that is — and Google Talk, Google Calendar, and Gmail.

In preparation for a brand battle between Google and Microsoft’s suite of Office products, Google has officially removed the “beta” reference from Google Apps, Google Calendar, Google Talk and Gmail.  According to the Official Google Blog, “beta” has been dropped in an effort to specifically target companies who find the beta brand label too risky to take seriously.  And if you want to compete against Microsoft, you’ve got to be serious (notice my sarcasm?).  Matthew Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise wrote in his post on the Google blog, “We’ve come to appreciate that the beta tag just doesn’t fit for large enterprises that aren’t keen to run their business on software that sounds like it’s still in the trial phase.”  Look out Microsoft.  Google has taken off its glove and is ready for a fight!

Let’s face it, Google hangs onto the “beta” label for a long, long time.  Gmail has been in beta for five years!  “Beta” seems like more of a crutch (i.e., excuse if anything goes wrong) than anything else.  In marketing and new product development, we call it a “pilot” program.  But for five years?  “Beta” seems like a stretch after half a decade of active use.  Did anyone really even notice the “beta” label in the logo on Google Apps, Gmail, etc. anymore?

gmail-beta-server-error

The question is whether or not companies will feel comfortable using online applications rather than offline applications for word processing, spreadsheets, calendars, email, etc.  The idea of having many of a company’s critical and/or daily workflow applications hosted by a third-party can be a difficult barrier to cross.  It’s a mind-shift that most people still have trouble making.  Google will have a lot of work to do to make companies feel comfortable making this kind of switch.  Google has the strength of its brand to back up its products. but that power has to be transferred to a new way of thinking and consumers need to feel secure in that new way of thinking before we’ll see a broad shift from offline to online apps.  I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it will take a lot more than, “but hey, we’re Google,” to get it done.

Your thoughts?  Who will win this battle of the brands?

Image: Flickr

Will the $1800 Faulty Prius Headlight Scandal Hurt Toyota?

toyota_priusThe story that’s been traveling through online branding circles over the past several days has centered around the upgraded headlights in Toyota’s eco-friendly Prius model and their tendency to fail, particularly after the car’s warranty is over.  At first glance, this story might not seem like a big deal.  So the headlight goes out.  Head over to the local auto parts store and pick up a new bulb.  But wait a minute!  These are not just any headlights.  These are special upgrade headlights that cost up to $1800 to repair and replace when they go out.  Suffice it to say, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota over these $1800 headlights.

Now, you might ask, if this is a widespread problem, why hasn’t Toyota issued a recall?  Well, despite Toyota’s reputation as being a manufacturer of quality vehicles that will last far longer than American made (I’ve heard that sales pitch at my local Toyota dealership – in fact, it was the only pitch the salesman had), the company is notoriously slow in responding to widespread problems such as this.  That slow to react approach might have a bigger impact on Toyota now for a few reasons:

  1. With economies doing poorly, consumers are ready to switch brands at a moment’s notice.  It’s not time to get slack on any kind of customer service issue.
  2. The Prius is the “it” car for socially and environmentally conscious consumers.  This is not an audience that will respond positively to a company that doesn’t do the right thing.
  3. If consumers don’t feel like they can count on the Toyota brand, then they’ll see little differentiation between Toyota and other car brands whose reputations have been tainted recently, namely, American automobile manufacturers like General Motors.

These reasons don’t even touch on the most obvious question — why does the Prius have an $1800 headlight upgrade option?  It seems excessive for a car that’s supposed to represent the opposite of excess.

So the question remains whether or not Toyota responds quickly enough to turn this black mark on its record into a minor blemish or if it will blow up into a full-fledged PR disaster.  We’ll have to wait and see.  Certainly, given the state of the world around us, one would think that a quick, customer-focused response would be the best path for Toyota to take to keep the promise its brand has come to represent to consumers.

What do you think?

Image: Flickr

International Trademarking Problems for Apple’s iPhone

iphone-chinaApple is facing a problem that is certainly not new to the world of branding and international trademarking.  There are over one billion people in China, and many of them desperately want an iPhone (rumor has it that over 1 million Chinese consumers already own one having gotten them through unofficial channels – via ComputerWorld). 

Apple’s problem isn’t a lack of demand for the iPhone around the world, it’s trademarking roadblocks.  First up — China and a little company named Hanwang who owns the trademark for i-phone in that country.

Back in 2002, Apple registered the iPhone trademark in China, but according to a ComputerWorld article, the registration only covered computer hardware and software, not phones or mobile phones.  Seems like a big oversight.  In 2004, a company named Hanwang registered i-phone in the phone equipment and mobile phone categories.  So now Apple has a big problem.

What should Apple do?  Let’s look at the choices:

  1. Apple can try to purchase the trademark rights from Hanwang (who did sell a handset called i-phone at one point).  Rumor has it Apple has not approached Hanwang to begin negotiations.
  2. Apple can apply to the trademark office asking to have Hanwang’s trademark revoked.  Rumor has it this process takes several years and usually doesn’t work.  To date, Hanwang claims to have not been contacted by the trademark office about any such filing.
  3. Apple can rebrand the iPhone for the China market.  This is not uncommon for brands that don’t translate well into foreign languages.
  4. Apple can ignore everyone and release the iPhone as the iPhone in China and let the chips fall where they may.  Typically, this is not a good strategy to follow for so many reasons.

What do you think?  What should Apple do?  It seems as though they should try to negotiate a reasonable deal to obtain the iPhone trademark in China, but if Hanwang isn’t amenable to a deal, then is it really that big of a deal if the iPhone needs to go by a different name in China?  Which is more important, the name or the product?  While there is value to the iPhone brand name, the Apple name certainly can carry its own weight.  I don’t think a different product name would be a sales killer in this case.  Would you still want or buy an Apple iPhone if it’s name were changed to Apple aPhone?  What if it were changed to Microsoft iPhone?  Would your answer change?  Again, I think the Apple brand name is more important in this case.  I don’t think I’d sweat it too much if I were in Apple’s shoes.  The potential 1 billion audience far outweighs the initial investment in rebranding the product.

Your thoughts?

Image: Flickr