Being responsible – economically, environmentally, socially – is not news. It’s expected. It should be a part of every brand’s business. But how should responsibility be reflected in your brand voice?

How a brand speaks about responsibility, and how it is embedded into its very personality, is more than just a great way to talk about what your brand promises – it elevates responsibility to be an integral part of your brand.

Take PUMA, for instance. Its vision – or PUMAVision™ – promises to be Fair, Honest, Positive and Creative. Great words. But how is PUMA living up to this promise?

Look no further than the Clever Little Bag. PUMA worked with industrial designer Yves Behar, and turned packaging on its head to create “the smartest shoe box ever.” The box became a bag.

According to the video, the statistics on the positive impact this will have on the environment are astounding. And further, Brandweek notes “the sneaker brand may also take its claim as a green innovator in the category and woo some consumers for whom sustainability is a major purchase consideration.”

But it’s how PUMA is talking about the Clever Little Bag that’s really caught our attention. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

Would an app by any other name smell as sweet? After all, software applications for mobile devices — or “apps” — seem to float above the fray, impervious to the machinations of marketers. If the app does what it’s supposed to do and does it exceptionally well, then the name is simply a handle — a necessary but inconsequential part of your app’s existence. Right?

Well, no. As veteran developers have learned through trial and error, your app’s name can be as important as the application itself. In traditional situations, a product’s name is just one part of a much larger marketing mix. Package design, advertising, point-of-sale display, promotions and more all play a role when you’re shopping for a pair of Nikes or your next iPhone – but when you’re searching for an app, nearly all of that tangible context is absent.

In Apple’s App Store, for example, users may access product descriptions and telltale screenshots only after flicking through endless product lists, with only four pieces of information to guide them: an icon (measuring less than 0.25 square inches), user ratings, the company name and the app name. The icon communicates the application’s personality and visual style; the user ratings and company name can provide some much needed credibility; but only the app’s name tells you what it is, what it’s for, and why you might just care enough to tap your screen for more info.

That’s why your app name matters more than ever before. With 225,000 third-party applications in Apple’s App Store alone, the universe of apps is becoming far too crowded to leave success to chance. Here are five tips to follow that might help you avoid a costly mistake. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

It’s ubiquitous, expected – its name synonymous with a kind of freedom we are not-so-gradually taking for granted. Sometimes it’s an unexpected relief to be without it, and we realize we could, occasionally, use a little less connection. For some it’s a basic human right we fight to provide, to aid in education and progress. Its recent availability on flights came, certainly, with mixed feelings.  (A blessing when you’re on that deadline, a curse when all you want to do is settle in with that book you’ve been dying to read on your Kindle or iPad).

But this much is certain: 25 years after the FCC okayed unlicensed access to radio spectrum for communications a world without Wi-Fi and all it has enabled would be, frankly, unimaginable.

That FCC decision paved the way for Wi-Fi and other wireless technologies – but its name, for some 14 years after this, remained code. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is spreading. It covers the news. It stains brands like BP. And it sullies our image of government. As we grapple with the catastrophe’s impact on brands—and more importantly on people and our environment—it’s worth noting that a common reaction to scandal and disaster, has often been, simply, a name change.

And so the U.S. Minerals and Management Service (MMS) announced that, it is making an official name change as part of its restructuring. The new moniker: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement—or the Bureau of Ocean Energy, for short. According to Michael Bromwich, who’s tapped to lead the restructuring “We will move quickly and responsibly on our reforms.”

As a professional namer, I will be the first to say that a new name can do a lot to help change perception. But this in itself is not enough. What it can do is signal your intent. It tells people you’re willing to make a deeper change. It gets their attention.

But a name change cannot be a change in name only. If not carefully done, it can infuriate people who think you are simply trying to paper over the problem. People aren’t stupid—and they will be skeptical, suspecting coverup. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

Supermarket giant Whole Foods, with the support of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), is trying to put a stop to misleading organic labeling in personal-care products; Avalon Organics, Nature’s Gate, and Giovanni have all been charged with not living up to the organic standard. They’ve even been accused of using the term as nothing more than a marketing ploy.

While the U.S. Department of Agriculture is in charge of the legal definition of “organic,” the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also has influence over the claims a brand can make. In order to be approved by the Trademark Office, trademarks cannot be deceptive (or deceptively misdescriptive), and a mark that mischaracterizes or misleads consumers about the offering is not permitted registration.

Examples of trademarks that the PTO has refused include “Lovee Lamb” for seat covers that were not made of lambskin; “Cafeteria” for full-service restaurants that excluded cafeteria-style restaurants; “Ecodown” for pillows that were not made of down; and “Organik” for clothing made from cotton that was neither organically grown nor free of processing. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

It seems that the popular photo sharing site Flickr has finally acquired what it’s been missing most – a vowel.

Following an announcement by Tech Crunch, it appears that, in tracking WHOIS domain moves, the ownership of the fully spelled out domain has transferred to Yahoo!

“As one of the most popular social sites on the planet, Flickr is also undoubtedly one of the most popular misspelled domains. Pronounced ‘Flicker’ Flickr decided to be all Web 2.0-cutesy with its name back in the day. That’s fine, except when someone else owns the Flicker.com domain.”

Flickr has long been a great example of a dotcom name that’s both a standout and a cautionary tale. While a hardcore of web-savvy early adopters may not need the “e,” as popularity grows beyond this group, spelling can become an issue – particularly with newbies to the site. The owners of Flicker.com chose to highlight this, perhaps to teach a lesson: the non-Flickr page had boldface stats trumpeting its 3.6 million unique visitors a year, with 95 percent direct hits – the implication being, millions of people looking for flickr wound up at its vowel-endowed counterpart. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS

Consumer-facing brands know that shelf impact is critical to their success, and a row of snacks at the local deli can be an invisible duel. Only the winner makes it to the register. But what happens when a single product is overloaded with brands?
 
I experienced this phenomenon when I purchased Lilly Pulitzer edition Barnum’s Animals crackers in support of World Wildlife Fund. My purchase journey was driven by two factors – prior knowledge that I enjoy animal crackers and amusement upon seeing the ultra-preppy resort-wear mainstay sign her name to a snack. But what I thought was a funny pairing of fashion and food turned out to be a dizzying convergence of brands. More...

Permalink | Comments RSS