Names, words, brands, concepts

In the last days I had to face again a situation that is quite common in the bathroom industry (and not only). Many of the names of our collections are changed by our distributors and this should make us understand how useless and frustrating all the conceptual work behind the launch of a product can be. We called our new collection Reflex because of its shape, of course, but also because we wanted to underline with Pierattelli Architetture their need to present something extremely analogic in a digital world. All the shoots took for this project were done starting from this concept.

This practice shows how weak the Italian manufacturers are. Many distributors change the names of the products to avoid them to be sourced from their customers at the origin. What does this tell us? Simple. We prefer to loose the strength of a concept, the power of a network built together to avoid problems… Problems that find their roots in a simple lack of trust in the parts involved.

Last but not least, many companies have different names in different countries. This is even a worst scenario and we did this mistake too with IB RUBINETTI and IB Italian Bathware, our north american brand).  

Many global companies, like Coca-Cola, Nike, Google, Intel and Microsoft, choose to use the same brand name in multiple countries.

This is not possible for every brand, but it can often be an advantage. Think of the degree to which a single brand name simplifies marketing and increases return on advertising investment. By comparison, how much more would one of these companies need to spend to achieve the same results with a different localised brand name in every market?

Proctor and Gamble likely understood the benefits of a single global brand nearly 70 years ago when it considered launching a new soap named “Dreck”. Shortly before the company introduced the soap, it discovered “Dreck” sounded like German and Yiddish words for dirt, garbage, body waste and a four-letter expletive that cannot be published here. Fortunately, because Proctor and Gamble did its homework, it had time to change the detergent name to “Dreft” and has since sold it successfully in many other countries.

Some products may never have the chance to go completely global because companies have already been branded with names that have embarrassing meanings abroad. For example, an Iranian company named Paxan Corp. currently produces a line of soaps and detergents under the name “Barf”. This word has a positive and clean meaning of “snow” in Iran, but what English speaker would ever choose to use a cleaning product with this brand? Likewise, if the Japanese sports drink “Pocari Sweat” were exported, how many English speakers would choose to drink “Sweat”?

In Japan, automakers have marketed the Nissan Moco and the Mazda Laputa. Unfortunately, these product brand names would never export well to Spanish-speaking countries where “moco” means booger and “laputa” sounds like a slang word for prostitute.

Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a Swedish car magazine named “Fart”. The name makes sense when you know that “fart” is a Swedish word meaning “speed”. Though the title caused no fuss in the magazine’s home country, there was considerable embarrassment when magazine staff travelled to international races and events.

The best decisions about brand names are informed decisions. Companies can collect all the information needed to choose the best global brand names by surveying linguists and country-specific brand checkers in various potential markets.

In sharp contrast with the brands named above, Kodak exemplifies the benefits of linguistic research in brand name development. According to reports a team chose the name Kodak after it determined that the word had no negative meanings or connotations in the countries targeted. In fact, the name had no meaning at all, but it was easy to pronounce in every country tested.

Quite possibly, the Paxan Corp. may have done research and known that the name “Barf” would not export to some countries but may have chosen to keep the name anyway because local opportunity for the “Barf” brand outweighed other market possibilities. However, with complete information in front of them, other companies might see the value in choosing a more globally neutral name much like Proctor and Gamble did with “Dreft”.

Whatever a company decides, making such decisions with complete information is certainly preferred over making such decisions with eyes shut and increasing the likelihood of branding the next international blunder.

Why limit a brand’s international potential? Think big! Companies should be prepared for international success by thinking globally from the start!

In the next articles I’d love to tell you more about the names of our products. There’s always a story behind them and we want to share it with you as suggested by my friend Francesco Spaggiari.