Has Disney finally figured out how to deal with the Muppets?

Yesterday, Beg to Differ introduced you to the brilliant new Bohemian Rhapsody parody from the Muppets – but with no brand focused commentary at all. Since then, we’ve realized that the big story here isn’t the video itself (or the others we’ve included below). The big branding story is the Muppet brand itself and its current caretaker: Disney.

Keeping your Beakers and Bunsens apart

A Disneyland attraction that visitors liked, but the problem: the kids didn't recognize the characters.

When I showed the Bohemian Rhapsody video to my kids – aged 3 and almost 5 – they laughed and laughed and laughed, just as my wife and I had done. Of course, they totally missed the parody, but it was heartening to me that they seemed to love the characters and hooted along with that trademark goofy, over-the-top vaudeville campiness.

But when I asked my 3-year old what he’d liked about it, he said: “Those Wild Things were funny.”

Anaheim, we have a problem.

It’s not like we haven;t done our parental duty by exposing him to the Muppets. This is a kid who has an Animal doll, 50 Sesame Street books, and has sat and watched the Muppets on YouTube, as well as the season 1&2 DVDs with the family. But even he couldn’t identify the “Muppet” brand, and couldn’t recall any names except Kermit and Miss Piggy.

Turns out my son is the market in microcosm (I’m so proud). Kids don’t get the Muppets. And I blame Disney.

Disney’s problem with Muppets

Since acquiring the Muppet brand in 2004 Disney has been widely criticized by fans for under-utilizing the Muppets characters and failing to re-invigorate the brand for a younger generation. For an exhaustive insider background, see Jim Hill’s blog post from 2007.

But in brief, I think this verbiage from the February 2004 press release captures the problem in humourless, corporatese:

The transaction includes all Muppet assets, including the Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and Animal characters, the Muppet film and television library, and all associated copyrights and trademarks…

Now read that again in your best Rizzo the Rat voice to hear how ugly, inhuman and unintentionally funny it becomes. These are cartoon puppet critters people!

It’s not easy being green (but it’s worth a try).

And it went downhill from there. Disney efforts have included an aborted attempt to make Kermit more “edgy” for his 5oth birthday in 2005, and a tone-deaf attempt to exploit the lead characters as commercial shills. The Ford Explorer ad shown here is a great example.

Demographic fact: Muppets are loved by nostalgic 30-40 somethings. Frog-leap of logic: Hey! Kermit can sell SUVs!

But through it all, the big problems that were festering under the surface were 1) a failure to generate any significant new Muppets content (or that the new content was bad), 2) erosion of the brand equity of secondary characters, and 3) lack of respect for the real brand qualities that made the Muppets so charming and relevant, and sustain them to this day in the hearts of 4) the brand’s real owners: who are you, me, and hopefully, our kids.

The Muppets of the mind

So that’s why it was so nice to see yesterday’s Bohemian Rhapsody video get hundreds of thousands of hits and quickly become a trending topic on Twitter. It’s also nice to learn that more videos are coming (watch for “Dust in the Wind”, “American Woman”, “Popcorn”, “Carol of the Bells” and “Stand By Me”) and that a new Muppet movie is in the works – among other interesting projects.

But most heartening of all, there’s the tone of the new content – which finally shows signs that Disney actually gets the Muppets. The new stuff is funny, and the characters seem like themselves again. And that’s why I felt like I had to share that video immediately.

To us, the real owners of the brand, the Muppets are about creating a warm space where comedy, pop-culture, kid-culture, and pure unadulterated silliness can come together. The real Muppets in our heads never take themselves too seriously (see the “assets” quote above), and they are also never mean-spirited or even “edgy” (they’re refreshingly nerdy actually – kind of like Queen music).

Oh, and take note: the Muppets in our heads would never sell an SUV, so they won’t help us buy one either.

Welcome back Muppets

But lest we be accused of getting too serious ourselves (we beg to differ!), below are a few more recent YouTube videos featuring some great second-string Muppets.

Bohemian Rhapsody – in case you missed it

Beaker does Ode to Joy:

The Swedish Chef carves a pumpkin:

Sam the Eagle gets patriotic:

Are we really the brand we drive?

A few minutes ago, while I was driving home from my son’s daycare Halloween parade (and yes, he wore his bat costume again) I got cut off on the road by an aggressive jerk. Weaving in and out of traffic, speeding, talking on a cell phone, throwing a smoking cigarette out the window – you know the kind. But now that I’ve described him, what kind of car do you picture him driving?

Chances are, this isn't what you're picturing (Photo from the Flickr stream of cornillious).

It was a Smart Car

That’s right, this jerk wasn’t driving an over-sized SUV, an expensive look-at-me luxury roadster, a rusted muscle car, or his mom’s minivan – any of which might have popped into your mind when I said “a jerk cut me off”. Well shame on you for being so narrow minded!

This jerk was creating dangerous road situations in a a cute little, enviro-friendly, fuel-sipping, tree-embracing Smart Car! And when I saw it, a little part of my brain popped. It seemed like an oxymoron, like a Ferrari doing the speed limit, or a Harley with a muffler.

But why should that surprise anyone?

Think about your preconceptions of Smart Car drivers for a moment.  Now think about how those perceptions of the people are shaped by the car’s design, the current global warming “zeitgeist”, the smart growth movement, and of course by the Smart brand with its perfect name and focused line of extensions.

The thing that went “pop” in my mind was betrayal: this jerk was knocking down my positive stereotypes of Smart Car drivers, and I resented that.

Now think about your brand

Ask your self a few questions:

• What preconceptions and stereotypes are built in to your product when people buy it?
• Are these expectations positive or negative for your brand image and values?
• Are the people “driving” your brand living up to the positive expectations?
• If they’re not, is your brand strong enough to make the odd jerk look like the exception rather than the rule?

In this case, my mental image of Smart Cars survived the encounter, and this jerk even made my affection for Smart a bit stronger since part of my indignation was on behalf of the brand – as in “how dare you do that to something I treasure!”

Smart branders know their tribes and cultivate them with carefully tuned messages. The tag line from freecountry.harley-davidson.com says it all: "Screw it. Let's ride."

So yesterday, while Beg to Differ was breaking up with the Intel brand, we got sad news about another old flame:  Saturn is dead. Penske threw in the towel on its attempt to revitalize the brand, and GM is finally shutting Saturn down. We’re feeling sad about that today. We remember when Saturn was promising to be “A Different Kind of Company; A Different Kind of Car.”

As you may have guessed from our name, we like “Different”…

(above) The home page of the innovative "ImSaturn Network" community Web site. Everything looks different... except the cars... and apparently the end of the story...

You can read the whole sad Saturn history at Wikipedia. We’re going to focus on the Saturn brand, and how the promise changed over time, then died, and what brand managers can learn from it.

“I’m sure if everything I read is true, I won’t be disappointed”

Somewhere out there, this third grade teacher from a 1992 Saturn ad (below) must be a bit down today as well. In it, she says she read about Saturn, and makes a personal connection when workers at the company read her letter. If you ever cared about Saturn like us, you have to watch this (Spoiler Alert: it’s really sad in retrospect).

Different worked… for a while.

And I’m sure she was satisfied, for a while.  For her, and for the rest of us that were rooting for the “different” approach from the auto industry, Saturn succeeded at building  1) a “Different Kind of” brand promise, 2) a “Different Kind of” corporate mentality, 3) “Different Kind of” retail experience (no haggling), and 4) a “Different Kind of” tribe of devoted followers. They really did. The vestiges of those things are still around.

For example, Saturn has been much better than most other companies at embracing and building community online. Their fan site ImSaturn u r 2 is really engaging, and their marketing team really gets Social Media. A couple months ago, Beg to Differ was shocked and delighted when @tomfolger and a couple of Saturn marketing folks popped in to a Twitter #Brandjam to correct us when Saturn positioning came up.

Unfortunately the vehicles themselves, the “Different Kind of Car” was only ever marginally different from other cars. But the service commitment became legendary, and at least the cars looked just different enough that you could spot a “Saturn” on the road. If only they had built on their differentness…

But that’s where the story turns sour.

The big problem was, the “Different Kind of Company” was always beholden to the corporate logic of GM – a very un-different automotive behemoth.  So as the Saturn competed more and more with GM core brands, and sales never quite matched expectations, GM had two options:

Option A: Think like a bean counter = differ less:

• The approach: try to fix technical, marketing, and customer service problems by applying the same rusty old car industry logic. Gradually water down the promise and file off the edges, so only the most fanatical still hold on to the hope of Saturn rising again.

Option B: Think like and human being = differ more:

• The approach: Keep renewing the vision by continuing to make the cars even MORE different in ways that customers will appreciate, and keep innovating on the corporate, manufacturing, and customer service fronts (preferably by not having  it be a GM company any more).

Their choice was clear: differ less

Over the 90′s, the cars looked and behaved less and less different from other cars on the road, and by 2000, the line had expanded to include the same-old range from sub-compact to SUV – diluting the core idea of what a “Saturn” was. The passion and excitement of Saturn customers waned – as did their repeat-purchase loyalty.

So by the late ’00′s, when the really big financial meltdown happened, Saturn was dragged down by the gravity of the GM’s collapse. At Beg to Differ, we can’t help but think that stronger differentiation, coupled with the fierce (and geeky) loyalty of those early believers would have carried them through.

The big questions for brand managers:

• Which option are you choosing for your brand – differing more or differing less?
• Are you thinking like a bean counter (internal logic) or a human being (brand logic).
• Are your corporate pre-occupations hampering your ability to deliver on the human promise of your brands?
• If you disappeared tomorrow, would any third grade teachers miss you?

More nostalgia from YouTube.

Japanese language ad: ordinary American country folk buildin’ cars:

Saturn homecoming – playing on the wholesome geekiness of Saturn owners:

Ten days ago, I wrote  10 days to Interbrand top 100 brands & 10 reasons to care. Well Friday (three days earlier than adverstised), the results came in. And if you have time, you can read full results and commentary at two sites: 1) Interbrand and 2) Business Week.

But I’ll warn you, it’s a lot of information, and you’ll have to wade through some sections knee-deep in self-congratulatory hype. So as a public service, I’ve distilled 10 aspects of the list that jump out for me (below).

n The past year for the financial industry in one concise picture.
This year, ING crashed right off the list, along with a few other financial industry stalwarts.
(Image from the Dutch-language blog www.molblog.nl/bericht/interbrand-top100-/)

(But first, a slightly bitchy side note to Interbrand: guys, if you’re going to release these three days early, please 1) skip the giant countdown clock , and 2) actually send notices to people that signed up. Okay, my chest is clear, on to…)

10 Highlights of the 2009 Best Global Brands

1) Coke is still it: Top five brands are unchanged

The top five brands on the list are exactly the same brands in the same order as last year, and although Microsoft and GE lost more value than most brands ever have, with the spread in value between the top four, those mega-brands don’t look likely to change anytime soon.

Nokia’s brand is losing steam however, while gaining ground behind it is Google (in a big way) and McDonald’s (growing, but more modestly).

2) Google is the big disruptor

The Google brand shouldered ahead of Toyota, Intel, and Disney, and now is very close to overtaking McDonalds. As a matter of fact, its brand value has almost doubled since 2007, when it was 20th in the rankings.

Think about that for a moment: “Google” has grown from geek-niche-buzzword to #7 brand in the world in just 10 years – growth rates we haven’t seen since, well, Microsoft pulled the same trick for the ten-odd years before that.

But now that Google is starting to look more and more like a big, aggressive company (because they are), can their brand sustain its quirky garage-band appeal? Already their “don’t be evil” internal mantra is attracting more cynicism than praise. And while Googlers are still innovating, and making a lot of feel-good noise with their open source projects, one wonders when critical mass and inertia kick in (see Microsoft?).

3) Other big winners this year

By dollar value gained, H&M, Ikea, and Amazon gained a solid amount of value this year.

But apart from the indominatable Google, Apple grew the most, adding an incredible $1.7 Billion in brand value. Apple is the darling of the branding industry of course and a favourite of mine (see my Steve Jobs tribute), with its creative energy and  focus on human-friendly products and messaging, so it’s heartening to see that doing it right by your customers still pays off during a recession.

4) Surprise! Financial institutions are the biggest losers

Have you heard about this recession thing? Well, if you have, then it should come as no surprise that the industry hardest hit in the brand value bottom line was the same industry that imploded and begged for (and received) massive government  bailouts.

American Express, Morgan Stanley, and HSBC all lost billions of dollars of brand value, while Citi and embattled Swiss giant UBS both lost half of their brand value in one year.  Several others dropped right off the list, including Merryl Lynch, AIG, and ING. Could it be a coincidence that many of these losers also have meaningless nomonyms for names (see my definition here)? Probably just a coincidence, but their names certainly didn’t help them.

5) Automobile brands: losing value

Also not surprising, every automotive or motorized equipment manufacturer on the list except Ferrari lost a significant amount of brand value this year.  Harley Davidson and Lexus lost the largest percentages.

But despite losses, a few brands managed to hold their own or gain ground. Apart from Ferrari, Audi managed to gain, while Ford kept its ranking – the only one of the “Big Three” American manufacturers to have a substantial corporate brand seems to have benefited from its perceived stability as well. Another star: Hyundai:

Hyundai boosted ad spending and aggressively promoted its Assurance program, which allows buyers who lose their jobs to return cars. Hyundai’s brand value slipped 5%, but it moved up three places to No. 69.  - Business Week.

6) Food and clothing: the basics still sell when times are bad

The same pattern held true for clothing brands – although it must be said that the list is incredibly top-heavy with luxury brands – so Gucci, not GAP; Rolex over Timex. I suspect that this is because of a) the weighting given to “brand premium”, that is, the amount consumers are willing to spend over and above competitors, and b) the fact that lower-priced clothing brands for us mere mortals tend to be less global.

7) Adobe: New kids on the branding block

Abode finally made the list after it “recorded record revenue and double-digit growth for the sixth consecutive year. They weren’t immune to the downturn (they lost money overall), but importantly from a brand perspective, they grew strongly in the consumer preference category. And their brand awareness continues to grow through the ubiquity of their consumer-facing products Flash, and the Acrobat / PDF line.

8 ) Brand USA – still the biggest brand builder

We were watching to see if the recession would dent the US dominance in global brands. With 52 brands on the 2o08 global 100, the Yanks are the uncontested branding champs, but those of us who were hoping for a moment of guilty schadenfreude were mostly disappointed that the US claims 51 – still a majority – of the 100.

Note to the rest of the planet: keep working.

9) No new countries

The names of countries in the Global branding club stayed exactly the same this year with only 9 brands coming from outside Europe and North America (Japan 7, Korea 2). Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world have yet to break in. But of course, it’s only a matter of time.

10) Brand Canada: maintaining numbers, but losing ground

Both of our two Canadian contender brands Thomson Reuters and Blackberry grew this year, and both made gains in the rankings with Blackberry jumping 10 spots to number 63. But they weren’t joined by any other brands, and what’s worse, we slipped a rank in number of brands-per-capita when the UK added a brand and vaulted ahead of us. On that list, we were 10th; now we’re llth.

Last week, we asked whether or not GM would be able to “go the distance” after creating a huge buzz surrounding the “What is 230?” campaign for the Chevrolet Volt (still not as good as 330). Since then, GM has done little to ease our minds. The foray into Internet marketing lacked information, timing, and a target audience. We’re still not sure why a teaser campaign was run with at least a year to product launch – you can tease, but don’t be mean (see Ad Age article).

We’re watching you eagerly GM, but not as eagerly as we’re watching your spinoffs.  Saturn is pulling the auto industry into a postmodern era, and being downright human about it.  And of course, we’re very curious what Magna and Opel are up to. Good luck GM, let’s see how long you can juggle all those brands.

Links

Ad Age article re: GM 230
Motor Trend aritcle re: a postmodern Saturn
BrandJam, August 13 re: auto tag lines and Saturn tweets
#BrandJam is live on Twitter
Saturn on Twitter: @lisagilpin & @tomfolger
Brand Strategy Boot Camp, Ottawa, Ontario, August 27

We’ve compiled a list of the 25 worst acronyms, and yesterday we showed you that tag lines need to help people. We’ve also covered more municipal tag lines and other local examples. But now, here’s a list of 25 useless tag lines from brands that should know better.

The city of Stratford Ontario felt compelled to put a random bunch of words on the top of their Web site. We're not sure why...

25 useless taglines

Note: most of these are old – taken from a previous stage in the life of these companies – but all are real as far as we can tell. Please feel free to provide a more current list from brands you may know, and we’ll do another round later.

1. Ames Rubber: Excellence through total quality.
This tag is the ideal example of the “space filler” tag line. Just read it slowly and think about these words. It sounds like it’s supposed to mean something, but when you get right down to it, it’s an empty claim that any company could make about any product.

2. Denny’s: A good place to sit and eat.
Maybe you could use this in a market where people didn’t know that Denny’s was a restaurant? Like Mars?

3. Exxon: We’re Exxon.
Arguing with the simple blunt truth of this would be like denying the reality of a rocky shoreline in Alaska. Although to be fair, the rocks at least had a point.

4. Mobil: We want you to live.
Oh thank heaven. I’m so tired of gas stations that wish death upon me.

5. Holiday Inn: Pleasing people the world over.
“Pleasing people” and “the world over” are pleasant but empty phrases. “Making the world smile” wouldn’t be a great tag, but at least it would provide an image in the mind.

6. Jimmy Dean: Eat Jimmy Dean
Wrong on so many levels – particularly for those of us who think (wrongly) that this brand was named after a dead film star. But we can’t say it’s not memorable.

7. Playtex: Is that a Playtex under there?
This one conjures up a clear sensory image: the image of someone getting smacked hard. And deserving it.

8. Singer: We make it better.
Better than what? What is “it”? And why are you better?

9. ChevronTexaco: Turning partnership into energy.
That’s not true. Energy comes from oil. Dirty, dirty oil. Seriously, it’s great that you merged your companies, but try focusing on your customers.

10. Chrysler: Inspiration comes standard.
Not with my Neon it didn’t… please see Chapter 11 for more on this.

11. E.F. Hutton: When EFHutton talks, people listen.
Never liked this one – and not just because a) the company imploded in a blaze of scandal and b) corny commercials like the one below from the 80s.

Here’s a better ad with Bill Cosby and a much stronger tag line: EF Hutton – “Because it’s my money”.

12. Hallmark: When you care enough to send the very best.
Empty words + guilt trip = Hallmark. Not to mention if you actually cared, you’d make your own. But that’s beside the point.

13. National Cattlemen’s Beef: Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.
How presumptuous of you! You simply stated a fact that you assume to be true, and it’s not even appetizing.

14. Petco: Where the pets go.
Yes. I got that much from your name. Now, tell me more…

15. Quaker Oatmeal: Something to smile about.
I smile about a lot of things. Oatmeal is not one of them.

16. Toshiba: Choose freedom.
I would love to meet the consumer research team that told Toshiba that what their customers are looking for when buying a personal computer is “freedom”.

17. Verizon Wireless: We never stop working for you.
“Your call is very important to us, please stay on the line. We never stop working for you. Your call is very important to us, please…”

18. Zenith: The quality goes in before the name goes on.
See, our competitors put the name on first, then they put the quality in. It just doesn’t work that way.

19. Citibank: Where money lives.
Like a bed and breakfast? Or more of an apartment style?

20. Carlton Cigarettes: If you smoke, please smoke Carlton.
I can’t stop thinking that this must be a Canadian cigarette company – we’d never force you to smoke because its bad for you. But if you do, you might as well smoke ours!

Honorable mentions — the airline industry:

Airlines have been around for a long long time. You can no longer differentiate from your competition by saying, “We fly!”

21. British Airways: The way to fly.

22. Western Airlines: The only way to fly.

23. United Airlines: Time to fly.

24. Delta Airlines: We get you there.

25. Korean Air: Excellence in flight.

• Sources:
  www.chomchomadvertising.com
  www.taglineguru.com
  www.textart.ru

For more on useless taglines and how to do better, see yesterday’s post: Tag lines: if they don’t help people, there’s no point.

Last week there was widespread (and agency-fuelled) speculation about the meaning of the mysterious “230″ campaign. AdAge managed to uncover that the source was General Motors, but not much beyond that. Well, this morning Twitter is abuzz with the answer: 230 is the EPA-verified mileage per gallon for the new Chevy Volt. (Translation for the rest of civilization: that’s old fashioned for ”97.78 kilometers per litre“). S0 5000 km (3107 miles) on a 50 litre tank? Not so fast…

The mystery campaign featured this graphic. The clues are all there (but no GM /; Chevy branding) Green + Electric + MPG + announcement date (today)

Interesting Brand Strategy and positioning notes:

GM 2.0. Of course, this is a huge stake in the sand to demonstrate to the public that GM is plugged in, tuned in to the green energy karma, and turning a big corner (does the 11 stand for “Chapter?). The Chevrolet brand seems to be the flag bearer for this, although the VOLT is being branded as a stand-alone portfolio brand. But is this just a smoke screen to mask deeper problems at America’s favourite Welfare recipient? Many think so.

Big splash for a rock that hasn’t hit the water yet. This is a clever way for GM to build hype for a very expensive little car that won’t hit showrooms until November next year – possibly much later. 230 mpg is a clever hook to attach to the Volt, and a tough claim for competitors to beat – for now. But will it live up to the claim? That’s the big question. 230 sounds great, but if the public gets turned off by the fuzzy dice being used in the numbers, this could blow up in their face.

Note the *slightly* evasive language (“tentative” “draft” “expects”) around what 230 actually means, as GM says that the mileage is based on “draft EPA federal fuel economy methodology for labeling for plug-in electric vehicles”. Which means that they’re weighting the new standards to shorter trips with frequent plug-ins and more city driving. So no, you can’t drive across the country on a single tank. I’ve seen apples-to-apples estimates of 100+ mpg using the old system. Not as much “wow”, but easier to back up – and less likely to create backlash.

The car is being categorized as an “extended-range electric vehicle” using “flex-fuel” which are interesting plain language descriptors – when the acronym “EREV” and the term “E-Flex” that have been used to label both concepts from early in the development process.  One wonders if the GM team is developing more trademarkable proprietary terms that will be unveiled closer to launch.

More information

Chevrolet boilerplate – note the heavy “green-washing” of the language

Chevrolet is one of America ‘s best-known and best-selling automotive brands, and one of the fastest growing brands in the world. With fuel solutions that go from “gas-friendly to gas-free,” Chevy has nine models that get 30 miles per gallon or more on the highway, and offers three hybrid models. More than 2.5 million Chevrolets that run on E85 biofuel have been sold. Chevy delivers expressive design, spirited performance and provides the best value in every segment in which it competes.

• GM Press Release
• Web page with more info / photos / releases

Notice juxtaposition of Chevy icon with VOLT name. Click to play animation.

Registration has just opened for the August edition of our successful Beg to DIFFER Brand Strategy Boot Camp – brought to you by the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) and Brandvelope Consulting.

Dennis fields questions at the last OCRI Beg to DIFFER Brand Strategy Bootcamp in May 2009.

Register here at the OCRI Web site.

This  boot camp is for all managers and executives with marketing, PR, or communication responsibility–whether in technology, government, not-for-profit, or other industries.  Basically, if you manage a brand and want to learn how to manage it for maximum connection and value (for your customers and for yourself) this boot camp is for you.

Date:

Thursday August 27, 2009

Location:

Nepean Sailing Club - 3259 Carling Avenue

Two Options:

OPTION 1: Half-Day Bootcamp – morning only

• 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. – Registration and Coffee
• 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. – Seminar 

OPTION 2: Full-Day Bootcamp

• Morning seminar (as above), plus:
• 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. – Lunch\
• 1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. – Hands-on Workshop

Why you should attend:

Reason 1: morning session

Morning Session provides theory, practical case studies, & tips

This seminar provides a great overview of three important topic areas for all Brand Managers:

Reason 2: afternoon workshop (only for full-day participants)

Afternoon workshop (available only to full-day bootcampers) is more interactive, and involves hands-on critique of your brand.

In this smaller-group setting, you’ll get a chance to apply the theory from the morning to your brand and get help from other participants and the workshop leaders.  The workshop will allow you to do a point-by-point inspection all the aspects of your brand. But note that the afternoon is for active participants only; be ready to give and take constructive feedback.

Reason 3: Take-aways

All participants will receive 1) Beg to DIFFER Brand Strategy Workbook  plus, full-day participants will also get 2) a personalized assesment of your brand strengths and challenges.

Reason 4: Beautiful setting

Nepean Sailing club is at 3259 Carling Avenue, just West of Andrew Haydon Park – only a short drive from downtown and Kanata. This venue offers stunning scenery and a relaxed atmosphere – we took the photo below from just outside the conference room. It’s the perfect place to spend a late August day gearing your brand up for the fall. Google Map here.

Boot Camp will be held at the beautiful Nepean Sailing Club - 3259 Carling Avenue on Lac Deschênes near Andrew Haydon Park

Reason 5: don’t take our word for it

“I thoroughly enjoyed the day and want to thank you and your colleagues for your efforts. I believe this seminar is a definite requirement in the Ottawa area and you have already put in place many of the cornerstones to build on to make this a truly awesome and interactive event for new and seasoned brand management professionals.”

Dan Chaput
Director, Marketing Communications
March Networks

Register here at the OCRI Web site.

(NOMO part 4 of a series of 4) Don’t blame John Mc Cain. Or at least don’t blame him for his problems with “alphabet soup”. Most acronyms are actually “nomonyms” – our word for unhelpful abbreviations, to which we say “NOMO!” We also discussed initialisms like “IBM” – which are also usually a really bad idea. But acronyms are a whole different world of hurt, and some are so truly, and hilariously awful, they are in a class by themselves…

The 25 worst acronyms in the world

1. STUPID – St. Thomas University of Public International Diplomacy
An academic institution in Kenya (we didn’t make this up)

2. MHAAG–Mental Health Awareness and Advocacy Group
Harvard University group (we didn’t make this up)

3. SL**T – Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology:
Name says it all (we didn’t make this up)

4. MOIST - MOntreal Internationalized Software Testing
A tech conference (we didn’t make this up)

5. RUMPS – Renal Unit Management Protocol System
From the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at the University of Birmingham (we didn’t make this up)

6. The PIIGS Group – Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain
International diplomacy (we didn’t make this up)

7. SHIN – Saskatchewan Health Information Network
It was almost dubbed Saskatchewan Health Information Technology System! (we didn’t make this up)

8. A*RSE – African Association of Remote Sensing of the Environment
Not-for-profits are guilty too (we didn’t make this up)

9. WinCE – Windows Compact Edition
Wince: to shrink or start involuntarily, as in pain or distress (we didn’t make this up)

10. FATCOLA – First American Trust Company Of Los Angeles:
Its on the side of their building! (we didn’t make this up)

11. NAMWOLF – National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms
“Legal excellence knows no color or gender” (we didn’t make this up)

12. CINCUS – Commander in Chief of the US Fleet (pronounced “sink us”)
The highest rank in the US Navy, circa 1922 – 1945 (we didn’t make this up)

13. SIGTARP – The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The guys who are saving the US economy (we didn’t make this up)

14. QAHCAA – Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans
Obama’s 2009 health care plan (we didn’t make this up)

15. SUX – Sioux Gateway Airport
They got the short end of the airport acronym stick – but check out their Web site www.flysux.com to see how they’re making the best of it – possibly even turning it to an advantage? (we didn’t make this up)

16. MILF – Moro Islamic Liberation Front
And don’t forget the political extremist groups (we didn’t make this up)

Some claim that this is the worst acronym ever:

17. PUMCODOXPURSACOMLOPOLAR – Pulse Modulated Coherent Doppler-Effect X-Band Pulse-Repetition Synthetic-Array Pulse Compression Side Lobe Planar Array (we didn’t make this up)

But the Beg to DIFFER grand prize goes to… the US Armed Forces for the sheer quantity of hilarious, and sometimes fitting, acronyms.

US Armed forces – the granddaddies of acronym abuse:

18. MANPADS – Man-portable air-defense systems
(we didn’t make this up)

19. DILD* – Direct Input Limited Duty Officer
(we didn’t make this up)

20. iBOM (“I bomb”) – Ionizing Brownout Mitigation System
(we didn’t make this up)

21. ASRAAM – Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile
(we didn’t make this up)

22. AS*BAG – Airframe Structure Support Boeing Advisory Group
(we didn’t make this up)

23. AARG – Affordable Accurate Robot Guidance
(we didn’t make this up)

24. IPODS – Integrated Precision Ordnance Delivery System
(we didn’t make this up)

25. S*IT – Store High in Transit
(we didn’t make this up)

 The whole NOMO series:

• Part 1: NOMO unhelpful abbreviations in government
• Part 2: an abbreviation is not a brand.
• Brief: NOMO in the Ottawa Citizen
• Part 3: a good acronym is hard to find
• Part 4: the world’s 25 worst acronyms.

(Part 3 of a 4-part NOMO series about abbreviated brand names) Right, so this week we’ve dealt with nomonyms, our term for any unhelpful abbreviated names, initialisms like IBM, and whether they can be a brand at all. And later we’ll deal with the 25 worst acronyms of all time. But first: acronyms. And here’s my lie about them: all acronyms are bad.

The happy couple in the merger of Russia's Gazprom and Nigeria's NNPC: the awkward new name "NIGAZ" (pronounced "NIGH-gaz" - no really)

So yeah. It was a lie: not all acronyms are bad.M

But just as initialisms are not a good choice for the vast majority of products and companies, acronyms are very difficult to do well, and are fraught with hidden perils – as the well-meaning folks in the picture above thought when they chose their acronym – based name, or the example we commented on last month: the SciFi channel, who thought Syfy would make a spiffy (not ”siffy”) name for their channel rebrand.

What is a (real) acronym?

But lets be clear what an acronym actually is. The word is used as a blanket term for all abbreviations – as in this Wikipedia post, which starts off making the distinction between acronym and initialism, but then ends up lumping them together. A true acronym has to meet three tests :

• a. It must be the abbreviation of a series of words, which
• b. creates an actual word that people can realistically use in everyday conversation, and
• c. the new word must stick — that is it must actually be used by people as a proxy for the longer phrase.

Meeting criteria a. is really, really easy. Anyone can take a bunch of letters and throw them together into a sequence. But if the combination is “YTJNE” it’s not an acronym, it’s an initialism.

Which brings us to criteria b. This one seems easy, but is actually devilishly difficult in practice. And criteria c. is the hardest of all, since this involves actually convincing people to use the name you create – and preferably without rolling their eyes or laughing aloud.

Why it’s so hard

It’s like trying to give yourself a nickname. In my early brand-geek days (when I was 8), I tried to get my friends to call me “Tater” (don’t ask). But of course it didn’t work. Why? because it was my idea of what would be cool, not other people’s idea of what FIT me.

Because essentially that’s what an acronym is - a nickname.  Think about how we call Coca-Cola “Coke”. We know the “official” version, but saying “Coke” feels more familar, more friendly. A good nickname is a proxy; a good acronym is a short, catchy version of a longer name that people are aware of, but if the right handle comes along, they’ll use it.

The secret to good acronyms

So here’s the key: a successful acronym has to be so simple, so elegant, so natural, that it feels like it was you customer’s idea all along. Essentially, it has to be a useful tool to help people notice, remember, and refer to you. Oh, wait, that’s our definition for a brand!

• Successful acronyms like “laser”,”NASA”, “Benelux”, and “UNICEF” are easy to say, easy to remember, and natural to use. When this is the case, the acronym actually supercedes the full name in the customer’s mind. I was an adult before I learned that UNICEF was anything but a strong stand-alone brand name. Quick: what does “scuba” stand for? Most people don’t even realize that it’s an acronym for “self contained underwater breathing apparatus”. That’s how natural a good acronym should be.
• Unsuccessful acronyms are either unwieldy (UNRWA – pronounced “un-rah”), unpleasant to say (GATT), or just too long (PUMCODOXPURSACOMLOPOLAR – Pulse Modulated Coherent Doppler-Effect X-Band Pulse-Repetition Synthetic-Array Pulse Compression Side Lobe Planar Array).
• Really awful acronyms: At their worst, acronyms are so laughably bad they make news on their own – ususally because the combination of letters forms a word that is just too much of a stretch. But we’re reserving those for another post.

The whole NOMO series:

• Part 1: NOMO unhelpful abbreviations in government
• Part 2: an abbreviation is not a brand.
• Brief: NOMO in the Ottawa Citizen
• Part 3: a good acronym is hard to find
• Part 4: the world’s 25 worst acronyms.