MarketingDoctor.tv
Brand Advisory: GM, CPI and the Google Trademark Question
Brand Advisory
The Marketing Doctor says:
Three Points: GM, CPI and the Google Trademark Question
First, GM (and the rest of the gang in Detroit). This might be the first time that I heartily agree with Michael Moore, but in an interview with Larry King on Wednesday, the long-time GM critic nailed it when he described the company’s “We build it and you will like it or else” approach. This is anti-marketing at its worst. Like with some of my other “favorites” (i.e., Microsoft), it is an approach that is only possible when you are so big that you can grow by bullying and then, once wounded by the changing marketplace and competition, take a very long time to bleed to death. GM and Detroit have been bleeding to death for a long time.
Also, add yesterday’s Washington performance to this sad marketing story (sad because I can’t forget all these workers losing their jobs). The fellas in the photograph above made another huge marketing error yesterday when they flew in private jets. It might seem like a detail and simply bad public relations, but public relations is an essential marketing component. What we have here are companies staking out a new marketing direction (leaner, innovative and humbled) but projecting an image that contradicts that.
This was not helped when one of the CEOs said that he would not take a pay cut. What are these guys thinking? They would never make it to first base in politics, so the capitol regulars must have been doubly amazed by this display, which probably explains the extra-loud volume on the outrage expressed by Congress. The lesson: when you are changing direction as a company, Marketing 101 demands that every aspect of your company and your people reflect this direction.
One side note: while I have been saying that GM and the rest probably need some dollar help (since the consequences of not helping could be more severe than anyone can imagine), it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. In terms of bankruptcy, one idea I’ll offer here is the government stepping in as lender during a bankruptcy restructuring. One of the big problems today is that companies that could restructure under normal circumstances are liquidating instead because they can’t find the financing to see them through (an article on that here). GM and the rest would get the benefits of bankruptcy without the worst case scenario, and the government would be able to reach a compromise.
Second, a quick note on CPI (Consumer Price Index). It reported its biggest monthly drop on record Wednesday. That and the PPI’s reading the day before is more evidence —in case we needed it— that price (and value for money) are going to be the areas that the real marketer will be focusing on in the months ahead. See my post on Target here.
Third, and finally, Google. Ah, the “Abercrombie Spectrum” and trademark protection.
Yes, folks, the question is: Does Google risk “genericide”? Genericide is the term for what happens when (and I quote): “a formerly non-generic mark may become generic over time through evolving public usage.”
I’m no lawyer, but I am a fierce defender of brand equity. Of course, I’m an even bigger believer in the daily marketing work one has to do to keep that equity strong and growing.
I’ve spoken to one intellectual property lawyer who believes that Google might be only a few years away from genericide. After all, who doesn’t use the term “google” to refer to an Internet search?
Some law students at the University of Illinois have written a fascinating and thorough take of the Google situation here, and it’s well worth a look. (Also, Wikipedia’s entry is insightful, and you can learn all about the “Abercrombie Spectrum.”)
I’m pasting a bit below from the law students, though, because it serves as a great historical reminder of how brand names and identifying words can become the victim of their own marketing success:
As Google seeks to avoid the genericide of its own trademark, it has an ample history from which to draw lessons and warnings. Genericide has claimed several well-known, widely-recognized victims, including Xerox, Band-Aid, Aspirin, Escalator, Kleenex and Thermos. In their day, the products sold by companies such as Aspirin, Escalators and Kleenex dominated their respective markets to such an extent that over time, public usage of those marks shifted. Instead of identifying a brand of adhesive bandage or facial tissue, Band-Aid and Kleenex eventually came to identify the product itself.
For instance, the genericide of “escalator” is one prominent example of how inaction on by the mark’s owner can make that mark generic. The Otis Elevator Company’s trademark for the term “escalator” was cancelled, in part, because the company failed to actively defend their mark from genericide. Specifically, two employees of the Otis Elevator Company were on the committee that drafted the “Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumbwaiters and Escalators.” [9] Neither of these employees objected or protested in any way to the generic use of the term “escalator” in the drafted safety codes. This course of conduct by the Otis Elevator Company caused the mark to “lose its significance as an indication of origin.” [10]
The law students make a strong argument that Google might not suffer the same genericide fate, since their name is linked to a website domain name.
I’m not buying it… After all, some of the genericized names above were/are connected to products and patents which seem as solid or more solid than a website…
But again, I’m an old marketer, not a lawyer, and I’ll limit my contribution to this: staying active in every aspect of your brand and its marketing is what gives your brand value. Brands are verbs, and brand equity isn’t something static that will grow passively like money in the bank.
And remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
Three Points: GM, CPI and the Google Trademark Question
First, GM (and the rest of the gang in Detroit). This might be the first time that I heartily agree with Michael Moore, but in an interview with Larry King on Wednesday, the long-time GM critic nailed it when he described the company’s “We build it and you will like it or else” approach. This is anti-marketing at its worst. Like with some of my other “favorites” (i.e., Microsoft), it is an approach that is only possible when you are so big that you can grow by bullying and then, once wounded by the changing marketplace and competition, take a very long time to bleed to death. GM and Detroit have been bleeding to death for a long time.
Also, add yesterday’s Washington performance to this sad marketing story (sad because I can’t forget all these workers losing their jobs). The fellas in the photograph above made another huge marketing error yesterday when they flew in private jets. It might seem like a detail and simply bad public relations, but public relations is an essential marketing component. What we have here are companies staking out a new marketing direction (leaner, innovative and humbled) but projecting an image that contradicts that.
This was not helped when one of the CEOs said that he would not take a pay cut. What are these guys thinking? They would never make it to first base in politics, so the capitol regulars must have been doubly amazed by this display, which probably explains the extra-loud volume on the outrage expressed by Congress. The lesson: when you are changing direction as a company, Marketing 101 demands that every aspect of your company and your people reflect this direction.
One side note: while I have been saying that GM and the rest probably need some dollar help (since the consequences of not helping could be more severe than anyone can imagine), it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. In terms of bankruptcy, one idea I’ll offer here is the government stepping in as lender during a bankruptcy restructuring. One of the big problems today is that companies that could restructure under normal circumstances are liquidating instead because they can’t find the financing to see them through (an article on that here). GM and the rest would get the benefits of bankruptcy without the worst case scenario, and the government would be able to reach a compromise.
Second, a quick note on CPI (Consumer Price Index). It reported its biggest monthly drop on record Wednesday. That and the PPI’s reading the day before is more evidence —in case we needed it— that price (and value for money) are going to be the areas that the real marketer will be focusing on in the months ahead. See my post on Target here.
Third, and finally, Google. Ah, the “Abercrombie Spectrum” and trademark protection.
Yes, folks, the question is: Does Google risk “genericide”? Genericide is the term for what happens when (and I quote): “a formerly non-generic mark may become generic over time through evolving public usage.”
I’m no lawyer, but I am a fierce defender of brand equity. Of course, I’m an even bigger believer in the daily marketing work one has to do to keep that equity strong and growing.
I’ve spoken to one intellectual property lawyer who believes that Google might be only a few years away from genericide. After all, who doesn’t use the term “google” to refer to an Internet search?
Some law students at the University of Illinois have written a fascinating and thorough take of the Google situation here, and it’s well worth a look. (Also, Wikipedia’s entry is insightful, and you can learn all about the “Abercrombie Spectrum.”)
I’m pasting a bit below from the law students, though, because it serves as a great historical reminder of how brand names and identifying words can become the victim of their own marketing success:
As Google seeks to avoid the genericide of its own trademark, it has an ample history from which to draw lessons and warnings. Genericide has claimed several well-known, widely-recognized victims, including Xerox, Band-Aid, Aspirin, Escalator, Kleenex and Thermos. In their day, the products sold by companies such as Aspirin, Escalators and Kleenex dominated their respective markets to such an extent that over time, public usage of those marks shifted. Instead of identifying a brand of adhesive bandage or facial tissue, Band-Aid and Kleenex eventually came to identify the product itself.
For instance, the genericide of “escalator” is one prominent example of how inaction on by the mark’s owner can make that mark generic. The Otis Elevator Company’s trademark for the term “escalator” was cancelled, in part, because the company failed to actively defend their mark from genericide. Specifically, two employees of the Otis Elevator Company were on the committee that drafted the “Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumbwaiters and Escalators.” [9] Neither of these employees objected or protested in any way to the generic use of the term “escalator” in the drafted safety codes. This course of conduct by the Otis Elevator Company caused the mark to “lose its significance as an indication of origin.” [10]
The law students make a strong argument that Google might not suffer the same genericide fate, since their name is linked to a website domain name.
I’m not buying it… After all, some of the genericized names above were/are connected to products and patents which seem as solid or more solid than a website…
But again, I’m an old marketer, not a lawyer, and I’ll limit my contribution to this: staying active in every aspect of your brand and its marketing is what gives your brand value. Brands are verbs, and brand equity isn’t something static that will grow passively like money in the bank.
And remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Before embarking on a new marketing strategy, it is critical that all elements of your business be aligned. If something “sticks out” that is not in keeping with the strategy, change or get rid of it immediately.
I’m not buying it… After all, some of the genericized names above were/are connected to products and patents which seem as solid or more solid than a website…
Reply to this