Instant Insight
Loading ...
Trademarks are over rated.
Ask any copywriter or art director and you’ll find a universal hatred for the trademark symbols. It might sound like creative whining, but our irritation goes beyond a desire for aesthetics and the easy-reading body copy. These symbols are overused, overrated, and are often worthless and unnecessary. They’ve become the substitute for good ideas, good products, good marketing and good sense.
Don’t get me wrong, trademarks are a necessary evil for some things. A business name, a brand name, a tagline, but at some point we found it necessary to put them everywhere. I’ll go though a couple of what I believe to be poor use examples and you can decide for yourself if the trademarks are worth the extra fine print.
USE: Trade marking product components.
Who does it? A lot of companies do this, but it’s really popular among more technical products (or products that want to appear more technical).
Example: Goodyear® Wrangler MT/R® with DuPontTM Kevlar®
Why do they do it? I think that marketers believe consumers think these trademarks will add equity and differentiation to their brands. They may invent their own component name brands and trademarks or use those of other companies. And even worse they often do both.
Why it doesn’t usually work: When you trademark components you’re essentially making another brand. Sure, some of these brands carry a lot of equity but BrandStackingTM (sorry I couldn’t resist making my own) can only get you so far. Throw in a product message and a tagline and all of the sudden you’re asking a consumer to remember 7 -10 different elements in a communication. Consumers just get confused or they see though it, especially when you start comparing products and you see that every company has their own proprietary technology which is often is really just their own trademark.
When it’s acceptable: When add-on trademarks are limited and don’t need a lot of explanation they can be quite valuable. Like McFlurry® with Oreos®. I get it. Delicious. It is possible to get more trademarks to work, but it usually takes a lot of media clout, like the Ford Focus® with Sync® technology by Microsoft®. I’d guess most of us have heard that. But I wouldn’t consider beating consumers over the head until they remember five or six different things is a good tactic either. If you’re going to do it, make sure it’s really a big deal.
USE: Over Trade marking everything associated with your product or brand.
Example: Buffalo Wild Wings trademarks every single one of their sauces. Sweet BBQTM, TeriyakiTM, MildTM, Parmesan GarlicTM, MediumTM, Honey BBQTM, Spicy GarlicTM, Asian ZingTM, Caribbean JerkTM, Hot BBQTM, HotTM, Mango HabaneroTM, and BlazinTM. It’s printed on their menu that way.
Why do they do it? No idea. I don’t know when it became necessary to make a product description an additional trade mark. I guess by trade marking everything they dissuade someone else from trying to copy them.
Why it doesn’t usually work: I’m no lawyer, but Buffalo Wild Winds is going to have a tough day in court defending it’s trademark on “HotTM” sauce.
When it’s acceptable: When your name is uncommon goes beyond simple description. Asain Zing, Mango Habanero, and Blazin’ have a much better shot at holding that trademark. But what’s more important? That it’s Blazin’sauce or that it’s from Buffalo Wild Wings? Even Kraft foods, the house of a thousand brands doesn’t trademark Macaroni and Cheese. Their equity is in Kraft. They aren’t so arrogant to think they can claim sole propriety over all macaroni and cheese. They do, however, put one on The CheesiestTM.
USE: Trade marking a product name that doesn’t even serve as a good description.
Example: Bose®. Everybody knows Bose right? The speaker company, that makes surround sound systems and they also have that little radio. You can probably recall the name of that one, the Wave®. Care to guess what any of these trade marked product names are? 231®, 351®, 131®, FreeSpace®, Lifestyle®, SoundDock®, L1®, Quiet Comfort®, Quiet Comfort II®, One Panaray®, Four Panaray® ToneMatch® Electroforce®.
Why do they do it? Cause they don’t think their product description is fancy enough. Sometimes they can’t even come up with a description and just TM the model number.
Why it doesn’t usually work: Again, without a lot of media clout people just aren’t going to recall your product names. You may have known a couple of the Bose products I listed. But you can’t tell me they wouldn’t have been just as good or better off calling the Bose® Quiet Comfort® Noise Canceling® headphones, just the Bose® noise canceling headphones.
Again, I’ve written some legal copy, but I’m no lawyer. There may be some great legitimate reasons to TM and ® a lot of the things I’ve mentioned. But next time you think your idea is good enough to become intellectual property in the eyes of the U.S. government, think twice about it. What are you really buying and is it worth it? And just because you have a ® or a TM doesn’t mean you need to flaunt it. Just ask these guys. www.apple.com.
What seems to drive most of this ingredient trademarking is the desire to make a unique claim and protect it legally.
But I agree. Advertisers end up diluting their own brand when they introduce too many of these sub-brands and branded components. An ad can be considered a success if a person remembers 1 thing. When you present them with 5 things, I’ll bet they actually remember 0.
What bugs me as a designer is when they ™, ©, ® every use in the copy. It only needs to be marked with the first use…not every single instance.
That bothers me from a legibility and aesthetic standpoint.
Indeed. What bugs me even more it that one client like it one way and another client wants it another way. And then if you mention it it also has to go into the legal copy. So you have to have a whole list of rules you have to go though that have little or nothing to do with the actual content.