What's in a Name? For Google, it's Value

Google will soon be saying goodbye to several non-Google name brands, such as Blogger and Picasa. Most important, the products will remain, renamed as Google. Blogger and Picasa are two of Google’s most popular products, so it makes sense to give them names to reinforce the Google brand.

Currently, it is not so obvious that these blogging and photo sharing products are associated with the world's most popular search engine. But that will become more apparent once they are known as "Google Blogs" and "Google Photos." (I did not know that Picasa was a photo-sharing service. The name implied some kind of art creation software to me. The new name, colorless as it may seem, makes the function of this product immediately clear, at least to me.)

Of course, Microsoft has been successful with this practice for years, as every product in their office suite carries the name of the company. This is a good practice for any business enterprise, extending their brand way beyond the obvious. Note the number of home products that carry the "Mr. Clean" name or oral hygiene products named Crest or Colgate. On the other hand, note how the Coca-Cola company eliminated confusion by branding their bottled water as Dasani rather than another Coke name. (This is in stark contrast to how the company shot to the top of the diet soda ranks by simply naming their product "Diet Coke.")

So now, Google will be known for more than "search." In fact, there are many who believe this is the beginning of remaking Google into a social media company. It is a reminder of the value of all of our names. It makes us more acutely aware of how and where we attach our names. What image does your name conjure? Are you associated with a particular habit or ideology, either of which could pigeon-hole the world's perception of you? In the simple words of Al and Laura Ries in their book, The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding, "Marketing is brand building."

This strategy will become clearer once Google launches their new business initiative, Google+. An apt name if they actually become known for more than searching on the Internet. Let's check back in a few months.

One Picture Tells a 118-year-old Story

I offer up this graphic from GE's 2010 annual reports as a terrific example of making a point clearly with a single graphic. Inside the front cover, it says that "GE's product and services offerings are aligned with human needs and growth opportunities around the world. As global population has grown over the past 118 years, GE's revenues has grown at an even faster rate."
This cover illustrates the point beautifully. It is clear that the world population, shown by the light blue, is outpaced by the GE revenues, symbolized by the darker blue.
GE's annual reports in recent years have set standards for clear yet concise communication. This graphic is just one example.
You can access this graphic and the whole annual report online by clicking here.

What If BLOGGERS Threw a Hissy Fit and Nobody Came?

Did Dunkin' Donuts cave? They threw Rachael Ray's TV ad for iced coffee under the bus. This happened after some bloggers who are anti-Arab/anti-Mideast/anti-Muslim (take your pick) complained that Ra-Ray was wearing some traditional Middle Eastern garb associated with terrorists. And as the Bush administration has been telling us, we can't let the terrorists win, can we?

Anyway, Newsweek has an editorial by Lorraine Ali that cites the dangers of Double-D's action. Even while she takes some humorous swipes at the real danger of the ad - i.e., Dunkin' Donuts product - she clearly states her true concern for their reaction: "It's that the cries of a few commentators indulging in the worst form of racial stereotyping—and their demonization of an entire culture—was enough to spook a giant corporation."

I understand her viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree. I look at this as a marketer, and I believe that as soon as the ad became well-known for this controversy, it became ineffective. Unfortunate, but true. I believe that Dunkin' Donuts had nothing to gain by standing on principle here. A more worthy example is Proctor & Gamble's insistence on keeping their logo, even though some insist that the company has ties to Satanism. Such a stand is worthwhile for such an integral part of a company's identity, but for a single ad with an overexposed media celebrity? Hardly worth the trouble.

Why Don't Advertisers Have Diversity Requirements?

I came across a blog and other writings from a lovely woman named Wendy Katzman. She is a physical therapist who is also spokesperson for the Dove Pro-Age campaign. Her laments in a recent posting are sadly common: Women of all ages are bombarded with images of under-25s with anorexic anatomies, making all others feel inadequate.

I thought about my own responsibilities over the years in corporations. I thought how the women I have met have helped make me more sensitive about being discriminating about age, weight, color, etc. And if I still didn't get the point, likely I would get the 2x4 across the head in the form of training and one-on-one sessions with HR people who would raise my consciousness.

But I also wondered why there aren't similar sensitivities in the commercial world. I love the Dove campaign, with its variety of women in all shapes and sizes. Why should that campaign be notable? Shouldn't we be displaying women of all types in advertisements as standard operating procedure? As my current boss points out, it may be an American phenomenon. She noted that when the two of us worked previously for a global German conglomerate, they had no problems with showing old people with wrinkles, gray hair, and dessicated bodies in their ads... in Germany. But the U.S. ads show idealized, sanitized views of elders, with preternaturally smooth skin and arthritisfree active lifestyles.

Read Ms. Katzman's blog, think about it, and then buy a bar of Dove soap. They may not be 99 and 44/100 percent pure - nobody is - but they deserve our support.