The power of a name and the need for change

I maintain another blog called FULL TANK. Being a professional in the field of marketing communications and an avid observer of the process of branding, I've always felt that choosing a good name is extremely crucial. Laura Ries has changed the name of the her blog. And these are her thoughts on the change.

I appreciate the candid confessions. It triggered a thought about one of my blogs mentioned above. To begin with, my blog was just another blog. It was a record of my thoughts on very many things. Cricket, Motorcycles, Beauty, Mumbai, India, etc. I observed that I was writing more about two-wheelers. Not just quantitatively but also qualitatively. So I decided to narrow my focus for the blog on two-wheelers and record my thoughts on other things by creating other blogs like FORK (on brands and businesses), Profss Drums (on education, policy-making and governance), etc.

Over the months, I've changed the name of my first blog many a time depending on my mood. Firstly I named it Indusbeats, then Slumberic Memoirs Of an MBA, later disstraction, and then thrillon2wheels, and finally settling for Full Tank. My impatience and a thirst for something more interesting every now and then also played a part in changing names so frequently.

Just when I felt fairly convinced that I had chosen an apt name Full Tank for my blog on two-wheelers, this article by Laura Ries gives me other thoughts. What does Full Tank mean? What does it connote/signify? Many things. Passion for motorcycling, cruisers, perhaps big bikes, etc. Importantly it also signifies the object that holds fuel (petrol, to be more specific) in a motorcycle/ two-wheeler. So what happens if tomorrow the world changes and most of the two-wheelers are battery-powered? Will there be a Full Tank? Will the name make sense? I know for the moment the name's just good. But tomorrow...

So? I'm not gonna change the name yet again :) though I did feel the temptation when I was reading the article. My only point here is to discuss the importance of the process of naming and the power a name (or a brand name) possesses.

What's your brand name?

Smokin' Joe's Might Smoke It All!

Smokin Joe's is India's homegrown Pizza brand. And seems to be doing well. Says 'Fresh Pizzas'. Seemingly a me-too brand (following in the footsteps of Dominos), it differentiates because it offers good pizzas but at a lower price than the brand it's following.

Having tasted success, this Joe seems to have grand plans. Like? Smokin Lees! What? Yes, a brand positioned to offer Home-delivered Chinese food. There are quite a few question marks here.

1. Has Smokin' Joe's exhausted all the possibilities of growing the Pizza brand? I don't think so. So if growth opportunities exist, why shift focus from a growing the brand to launching another brand?
2. Has Smokin' Joe's studied the Pizza brands worldwide, especially the biggies like Pizza Hut and Dominos? Why didn't these two brands extend themselves into any other food category? Don't they have more understanding and wherewithal to undertake an initiative like that?
   
3. What does Smokin' Joe's stand for? How does Smokin' Lee's does justice the established brand? When the brands are meant for two different categories of food (and also, when the promises 'seem' different), why is there such a similarity in names?

Smokin' Joe's might end up undo a lot of good work that's gone behind the first brand. Firstly, it shouldn't have taken a chance to shift its focus from the Pizza category. Secondly, even it were to expand in other territories like Chinese Food, the name and the positioning deserved more thought.

Look at the name Smokin' Joe's and the way it is rendered as part of the logo. It reminds you of the wild wild west where the cowboys come from. The word 'smokin' makes you envision the gun-totting cowboys. Now considering this, how does it compare with Smokin' Lee's? What's Lee gotta do with 'smokin'? 'Lee' sure does remind you of China but definitely not the cowboys. The brand manager at Smokin' Joe's must have thought that the common element 'Smokin' might help the new brand establish itself easily. I am not sure of that, but definitely if brand-naming follows any logic (even if not pure logic but perception-driven logic), then this is a clear case of 'anti-logic'. Even if brand-naming isn't about logic, it definitely must not be so obviously 'anti-logical'.

Smokin' Joe's is Fresh Pizzas. Smokin' Lee's is Home Delivered Chinese Food. Do the two sound/mean similar things. May be. May be not. Yes there could be an overlap but the two do seem different things. Then why use 'Smokin' as a common word (or theme). My word, the two brands should've been entirely different with different promises. A brand focussing entirely on Home Delivered Chinese Food is a new happening in the market but Smokin' Lee's might not help to exploit the potential.

Kaun 'Videocon'? The power of a brand name

This post is a short one. When business grows, the brand name starts assuming a god-like status-and-mention in the media. This of course gives a hedonistic feeling to label and sell every possible product under the same brand. There could be many other reasons but the one mentioned is good enough to explain many many brand extensions we see in the market place.

Our home-grown conglomerate Videocon is one such example. But what makes it stand out is the fact that the brand name is 'Videocon'. Isn't it apparent that 'video' in 'Videocon' stands for visual entertainment products? Clearly, being one of the first-movers in the Indian entertainment products industry, Videocon came up with a good brand name for its televisions and also for, now-extinct VCRs, and CD and DVD players. However, to put the same on washing machines, tape-recorders, micro-wave ovens and air-conditioners is not just preposterous but also downright suicidal.

That's quite a statement to make for me but that's the power of a good name. Applied at the right places, it works. But apply it to something that's not a match and you kill yourself. Videocon's share in the market in most of its product-categories has been going down and one of the big reason is its branding strategy.

Sumo tries becoming svelte, or is it?

If the third one is Tata Sumo, what about the first two... Make a guess.

When Tata makes automobiles, especially consumer utility vehicles or passenger cars, it fights a lot of perceptions. Why? Because of the ubiquitous and lumbering Tata Trucks we've been seeing on Indian Highways since time immemorial. To top that, when Tata launches consumer utility vehicles, it plays with brand names, launches variants, shuffles the brand names based on internally discussed logical plans; the brand managers really work hard. Just that they might not care much for perceptions of consumers who buy their brands or products.

Tata Sumo was launched, it did well in the initial years and then got clubbed when Toyota Qualis entered the market. Wasn't surprising that the majority of the buyers of Sumo were the taxi fraternity. But the brand managers wouldn't give in. The initial success of Sumo perhaps wasn't forgotten.

Since taxi fraternity was going in for Sumo and perhaps the marketing/brand managers didn't really like the fact, they launched a cheaper UV - using the Sumo platform and shape - called Tata Spacio. The idea would've been that drivers would adopt Spacio leaving Sumo for extensions upwards. Show a Tata Spacio to anyone right now and ask that person which vehicle is that. 95 out of 100 would say, "Tata Sumo!"

Extend upwards, they did. They launched Sumo Victa - again using the original Sumo platform and shape. The ad hinted at individualism and luxurious life-style; the parting line was Kuch log Sumo Victa chalate hain with a guy in erect-posture looking at you. Imagine! First name a utility vehicle Sumo (a vehicle with an expansive body, naturally to accommodate many passengers) and then show individualistic tendencies. Victa, from my memory, hasn't done great. Show a Victa to anyone right now and ask which vehicle is that, he or she would say, "Tata Sumo!"

Brand managers didn't give in. So again remembering the success of original Sumo, and the subsequent success of a rival product Mahindra Scorpio, the brand managers launched another vehicle (built on the same platform but with a cooler look) called Sumo Grande. This time, for family. I don't see too many Grandes on the road yet. Grande stands out distinctly from the original Sumo, Sumo Victa or Spacio. Then why is it called the Sumo? Killing your own baby, is it?

Brand Sumo has been messed around with, left, right and center. One needs to understand that Sumo, the brand (or any other brand), isn't owned by the company; it is owned by the people who consider it and buy it. Brand is a summation of their perceptions. It's mostly at the point of inception that the brand manager has complete control over pitching the brand as one thing and not the other. Thereafter, consumers have the right to accept it and reject it. And if the brand turns out successful in a particular way, no matter the brand managers desire or do, it might continue to be perceived in the way that made it successful.

If Grande is for family and Victa for individualistic guys, think what is Tata Safari for? You'll say Grande and Victa are UV's and Safari is an SUV. To elaborate more, you'd say Grande is a luxurious UV competing with the likes of Toyota Innova. Then why call it Sumo Grande? If Victa is for individualistic guys, why is it a UV? Isn't SUV more suited for individualistic tendencies? Loads of questions. Confusing. Jumbled. That's right. Courtesy, the branding strategies applied for Tata Sumo. Do you doubt then that the performance of the brand isn't really as desired.

I suspect brand managers could exercise greater control, especially beyond inception, over brands which failed in the first place. Assumption is that the brand failed because people couldn't quite accept it and therefore do not have too many perceptions about it.

Also, it's easy to bring a 'high-end' brand lower but mighty tough to push a 'lower-end' one higher. Tata needs to rethink about Sumo. Or rather simply leave it for the mass transit purposes. Do some chopping (easier said I know what with all the capex already incurred) and launch new brands to target different segments; that would be better. Perhaps better products would also do better!

Lessons from the streetside vendors

Street hawkers, fruits/vegetable vendors by the roadside - these are pretty common sights in India. I was riding with my wife this morning. At a bend, we noticed a couple of fruit vendors - one was selling lichees and the other, mangoes. We passed the bend and had gone further 20-25 meters when Arti tugged at my shirt and said, "The lichees look good. Let's buy some." We took a u-turn and bought some lichees. And then, as we were about to resume our ride, we bought mangoes as well.

Fruits are very often sold this way - one vendor selling one thing. The sight of one thing stocked in a huge quantity leaves quite an impact. Not only does is it visually attractive, but also makes one think that the fruits are of good quality, fresh, and perhaps, with good taste too. It whets one's appetite. If a good mood coincides with the sight, one ends up buying. Recall your own experiences and you'll notice that the same would occur less often if one vendor has stocked many types of fruits.

What's the import? Focus. Yes, focus on one thing, you'll most likely sell more.

Am a fruit lover. Therefore, to an extent this post is personal. But this small little commonplace occurrence by the street-side, I feel, includes a lesson.

Reliance Fresh: Brand Names, Extensions and Troubles

Here's against mindless extensions.

Organized Retail - of all kinds - is booming in India. And all kinds of companies/ individuals have ventured/ have plans to venture into the sector. Notably the big conglomerates like Tata, Reliance, Aditya Birla, etc. Not that they've restricted themselves to one kind of format. They are exploring all sorts of formats and in different product categories.

Is the above paragraph a little vague. How could it have been any clearer; it's just a reflection of the way things are happening? And the initiatives taken by some big conglomerates haven't been without their share of troubles.

Reliance Group named its grocery retailing (dry and wet) chain Reliance Fresh. Just at the same time Aditya Birla Group also opened its grocery retailing chain under the name More. There's another chain of grocery retail stores - Spinach - which opened within the same time-frame. And of course, Subhiksha was already there. There must be other chains too but not so well-known.

All these chains of stores are doing the same thing. Giving a bigger and better shopping experience for your daily needs while charging almost the same (in certain product categories even less) as unorganized retailers/vendors. In effect, replacing the latter or taking a substantial chunk of their business. No wonder, they (More, Reliance Fresh, Spinach, etc.) would face resistance from the affected community. But it wasn't 'they', it was just Reliance which was at (or got sucked into) center of the storm. And one of the reasons is the name 'Reliance'.

What about it? Reliance has gone about branding each of its business areas as 'Reliance _______'. Until the point the company got into sectors (with the name 'Reliance') which were new, niche or additional to the economy, everyone smiled. The moment it sought to replace (under the brand name Reliance) an existing business community, it faced resistance. Obvious isn't it? A threat to your subsistence would make you sit up and react, won't it? Unorganized retailers/vendors did the same. Natural! More so when it is India, where people try so hard to live a simple life.

Reliance is perceived to be massive. All know what it is. They might not be aware of the numbers but they know its might. You might not know how heavy an elephant is, but you know its might when you see it. Indeed, when it got into grocery retail, small vendors would've shuddered thinking about the loss of business. They know the power of 'Reliance'. Here's where extension of the brand Reliance creates problems.

What if the chain was called 'Morning Fresh'? What if the brand 'Reliance' were simply kept away from the chain store brand. Perhaps, it wouldn't have stirred the imagination of small vendors/retailers so violently. They would've known the adverse impact but would've just considered it like 'More' or 'Spinach'. The moment one hears Reliance, it only conjures up an image of elephant - huge, massive, dominating. When it gets mad, it is trampling! Not just that, Reliance name has become all pervasive. Wherever you go, you find something that is Reliance. Is it a God? Is it trying to play God? We don't know but people might think so; they'll react in the same spirit - in the way they best know. Medium is the massage. When all the places are painted with Reliance and all the places you buy from become Reliance, I'm sure you're gonna lose it one way or the other.

So, it would have been more appropriate, for various reasons, for Reliance to use a different brand name, especially when it seeks to so conspicuously replace the existing businesses and small businessmen. Telecom was new (new in people's lives), something additional. Naming it Reliance brought in kudos for the company. Context matters. Understanding the context matters as much.

Abstractions in Extensions

Abstraction is tough to sell. It's easier to imagine the face of a girl if you've met/seen her. But if you hadn't seen her, you wouldn't be able to figure out even if I described her features in the best possible way. Sounds similar to "A picture is worth a thousand words." Words are abstract, visuals are a little less. Isn't it also similar to saying "Actions speak louder than words."? Pictures are more tangible, more concrete. Actions have greater impact, are easily felt.

Let me explain through some concepts through a lollipop exercise:

Imagine 'Soft'. What happened? Difficult? Easy? What did you imagine? Velvet, Sofa, Fur, Fairy, Child or something else... Fair. You can imagine many many more things.

Imagine 'White'. Fairy, Milk, Soap, Fur, Feather, Swan, etc. You can imagine many things.

Imagine 'Beauty'. Aishwarya Rai, White Marble, Taj Mahal, Lake, Sea-shore, Smile, etc.

These words can represent many things at the same time. Said in isolation, they would conjure different images in different people. Yes? You would agree. Different minds would converge to one image only if there's another word (added to any of the above words) which would force them to think in one dimension. For example, if I say 'White Feather', you can't imagine any other thing than 'a feather which is white'.

Now comes my assertion: When a brand is extended, 'whatever the brand stands for' needs to be made an all inclusive concept, which forces the concept to become abstract; the end result of which is lack of clarity about 'what the brand stands for' in the consumer's minds. The more the extension, the more the abstraction. The more the abstraction, the lesser the understanding among consumers.

Consider the brand Dove. Typically, if I ask someone what is brand Dove, I would get a reply like 'Soap with Moisturizing Cream'. And the image in the mind would be a 'white-colored soap' in 'bar' form because perhaps moisturizing cream has come to be associated with 'white' or perhaps Dove always highlighted the white color of the soap. So, that's Dove for you. Soap with moisturizing cream. And we have plenty to say about how successful a brand it is.

However, some marketers are bent on extending it. In fact, they have extended it to include other variants of bar soap, body wash, shampoo, deodorant, etc. Ask them what does Dove stand for? To give an umbrella concept, they'll say Dove is 'Softness'. Or perhaps something else, if they are able to fetch the right word that is. In other words, consumers would now have to think of Dove as 'softness (or whatever else)'. As abstract as that! Definitely with all these offerings, consumers can't say Dove = Soap with Moisturizing Cream. For if they still say that, then Marketing Managers of Dove have failed. And, if they don't say that, then the Marketers have successfully replaced a concrete concept like 'Dove = Soap with Moisturizing Cream' with a rather vague one like 'Dove = Softness'.

But the concept of 'softness' is different in different products, therefore difficult to realize (for consumers) for each of the product categories. Marketers will try and force it down the consumers throats the idea of 'softness'. Why? Because the former have intellectually and logically inferred what Dove is and now they assume the right to teach the latter what Dove is. Wow! The consumers will have to accept it, isn't it. They have no choice. They have to watch television, they have to watch soaps. But on the retail shop-floor they have a choice to ignore the shampoos, deos and whatever you have.

Have doubts? Then, try answering what is the brand Dove? And if you come up with an answer, you know what Dove is, and it isn't. Is it just 'softness'? Do you buy its deos, shampoos, etc? Perhaps. Will you continue to buy the same in future? May be, may be not. But will you buy the soap in future? Definitely.

Thankfully for Dove, it might thrive on people's belief in the 'Moisturizing Soap'. But in other cases, through the means of needless extensions, marketers might be successful in making the brand abstract, thereby obliterating the existing equity and eventually, killing the brand.

Brands need less extension, less abstraction. Less abstraction by itself will lend concreteness to the brand, help solidify its position and therefore, facilitate easy understanding and memory among the consumers. Think before you extend.