Brands don’t get diluted because they are overused in popular terminology. Brands get diluted because they’ve ceased to be relevant.
(e.g. ‘xeroxing’ or ‘googling’ something)
-
My Book
-
Me
-
Pre-order this
[I contributed to it]
Women in Technology Edited by Tatiana Apandi First Edition October 2007 (est.) Pages: 64
15 Comments
You seem to be implying that google and xerox are irrelevant brands. I think far from it, maybe you meant that the action is not brand dependant (in the sense that ‘xeroxing’ something can be done on any brand of copier, though ‘googling’ is slightly different - mostly equivalent to ’searching on the internet’ but I doubt you’d say ‘google something’ to your friend and then they’d go and use yahoo to do it
Google as a brand has not gotten diluted. Just because something enters the english vocabularly as a common word, doesn’t mean the brand has become weaker. In fact I think it has gotten a lot stronger (look at my example above and see how awkward it would be if someone used yahoo to find something after being told to google it
I’m actually referring to Google’s whole thing about being scared that if people use ‘googling’ as a verb, it will become diluted (and they used the example of ‘Xerox’ to prove it).
Google is far from being irrelevant. Xerox kinda is. But what I’m SAYING is that Google shouldn’t be concerned because it isn’t using googling as a verb that dilutes a brand, it’s becoming irrelevant that dilutes a brand.
I didn’t want to explain it too much. I thought it was fairly clear, but I guess I was wrong?
Thank You. I never understood why companies objected to their brands being synonyms for whole classes of products or services. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Might I suggest the VCR as a good example? Betamax failed for several reasons but a clear indicator of its impending death was when consumers started using VHS and VCR interchangeably.
The reason companies object to it is that if “googling” becomes synonymous with “searching the Internet,” then it doesn’t matter which search engine you use, because they’re all the same right? Could be Yahoo, Live, Ask… and Google. They all get lumped in together in the mind of the consumer. They all work just as well, right? That’s not what Google–or any brand leader–wants at all.
Well, the point that I’m trying to make is that, if they are amazing, kickass, etc. (which is usually why they get the pop culture reference in the first place) and stay that way, they won’t become diluted.
I don’t think they’re scared. I feel like, in secret, companies love things like this. It’s just that they’re actually required to publicly state that people shouldn’t use the word in that way in order for them to retain their legal claim to it. They do what’s required of them publicly by silly law folk. At least that’s the way that I understood it.
Adobe does this with Photoshop and “photoshopping” too. There was a post on Reddit recently about it, I think.
Tara, that is such a precise and accurate statement. I’m going to borrow that one… ok, steal it… and use it.
I have been dealing with this issue a lot lately, in a number of different conversations, so this is not only very perfectly stated, it is also quite timely for me personally.
Thanks for the inspiration (again).
Morning Tara,
First of all, I agree with Sean McBride’s comments. The current US (and I think around the world) trademark law requires company to send out those silly legal letters to warn people of inappropriate use. If they don’t, sooner or later, their trademarks will start to loose their protective power and their brands becomes generic.
As an aside, here are my 2 cents on google’s trademark that I wrote last August,
http://kempton.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/google-a-verb-guerrilla-marketing/
Just so we know how serious Google view these letters. Here is one example that Google used in their “legal letter”
“Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he’s listed in the results.
Inappropriate: He googles himself.â€
(big smile)
Now, if you are arguing that trademark is an outmoded form of protection, then it is a different matter. In fact, I’ve been using “ideas Revolution” as my company’s name without much formal action (other than a .com website). And I don’t have much plan to trademark it.
For me, my turning point came when I saw how the issues surrounding the Web 2.0 trademark/service mark registration were started, mishandled and handled Tim, et al. (For some info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#Trademark and Tim’s own postings). The Web 2.0 trademark mess has shed light on the limitation of trademark in a Web 2.0 world. I highly recommend those care about IP protection re: trademark to read up on the stories surround the Web 2.0, it is a good “case study”.
Cheers,
Kempton
OOps, looks like the spam filter doesn’t like my 2 links. So I have modified the text to take out the links. I hope I am not double posting.
———
Morning Tara,
I agree with Sean McBride’s comments. The current US (and I think around the world) trademark law requires company to send out those silly legal letters to warn people of inappropriate use. If they don’t, sooner or later, their trademarks will start to loose their protective power and their brands becomes generic.
As an aside, here are my 2 cents on google’s trademark that I wrote last August,
Search for “google guerrilla marketing” on my blog
To show how “serious” Google was about these legal letters, Google used this as an example in their “legal letters”.
“Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he’s listed in the results.
Inappropriate: He googles himself.â€
(big smile)
Now, if you are arguing that trademark is an outmoded form of protection, then it is a different matter. In fact, I’ve been using “ideas Revolution” as my company’s name without much formal action (other than a .com website). And I don’t have much plan to trademark it.
For me, my turning point came when I saw how the issues surrounding the Web 2.0 trademark/service mark registration were started, mishandled and handled by Tim, et al. (For some info, see Wikipedia Web 2.0 entry (in particular the Trademark section) and Tim’s own postings). The Web 2.0 trademark mess has shed light on the limitation of trademark in a Web 2.0 world. I highly recommend those care about IP protection re: trademark to read up on the stories surround the Web 2.0 trademark/service mark registration, it is a good “case study”.
Mind you, I am a firm believer of fence-sitting. So I may still use trademarks as tools in the future but they are not absolute tools as shown by Tim’s “Web 2.0″.
Cheers,
Kempton
Tara, I agree with you. I was quoting the “official” reason companies like to protect their trademarks (I was a tech writer in another life, and I know this issue well…) I also think a lot depends on the company and the product. Google strikes me as the kind of company that can do what it takes to keep this dilution from happening… It will take constant innovation and improvement, as you suggest. They need to make sure that the product is always the best, so that if people DO try to “google” using Yahoo, for example, they’ll say, “huh! that’s not what I expected…” and go look for Google again…
I also think that they could, at some point, tackle dilution (through the use of “googling” as a generic) with some clever advertising that highlights/spoofs the concept. Wouldn’t that be fun to see? I can imagine all sorts of amusing skits/ads/commercials.
Just a side note:
Brand dilution (as it’s typically defined) deals with adding brand extensions and thus “diluting” the core brand.
Common Usage deals with a brand that gets to a point where Coke = any soft drink, Google = any search engine, Xerox = any copier, or Yo-Yo = a specific toy.
The first is a business issue, the second is a legal issue. Brand dilution is a decision made by the company as to where and how they want to extend the brand, based on whatever overall effect that might have on the business.
The second is a legal issue, as has been pointed out, where the theory of “don’t use it, lose it” comes into play. If you don’t send out the “Don’t use my brand name to mean the industry”, then you have a hard time winning court cases where people are putting “Coke” on cans of some random non-Coca Cola produced soft drink.
I’m guessing here, but perhaps your point was this:
Brands don’t get diluted simply by creating brand extensions, they become diluted when those brand extensions are irrelevant to their audience.
?
I understand your point and do not entirely disagree but in some markets Coke does equal any soft drink. You are of course correct on the need for companies to protect trademarks from other commercial uses. What I don’t get is that some companies seem to dislike consumers using their brands in that manner, I just happen to disagree that it dilutes the brand. I’m sure every piece of red on that linked map bothers Pepsi executives.
I read it as “googling vs xeroxing” and thought ‘Yup, I can see that, nice point.’ Am amused (and impressed) that a simple one line assertion can generate so many picky, detailed responses.
http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/40074/
Tara, where is your Web 2.0 darling now?
All the Ajax and Creative Commons licensing in the world won’t save you if you’re an asshole (you meaning, of course, Yahoo, not you, Tara, you’re a sweetheart).
I read the entire forum and it looks like:
1. Flickr is taking full responsibility for a bad personal decision (not Yahoo decision)
2. It’s been resolved as far as I can tell with Rebekka.
3. There seem to be a heckuvalotta people just angry…and it seems that nobody could apologize enough. Some of those people have vested interests in keeping people angry. Others may just need to have some time and space put between the incident and their healing.
Yahoo has never been my personal darling. I’m just as suspicious of that company as I am with any other bloated large corporation. Flickr, though, I know they are human beings with hearts and souls. I suppose knowing them personally makes me biased.