Nothing causes as much confusion in the branding process as the proper use of a company name.
The issue of how to use a company name is at the same time simple and complicated. Simple, because the laws are so clear-cut. Complicated, because most companies do not follow the simple laws of branding and end up with a system that defies logic and results in endless brand-versus-company debates.
Brand names should almost always take precedence over company names. Consumers buy brands, they don’t buy companies. So when a company name is used alone as a brand name (GE, Coca-Cola, IBM, Xerox, Intel), customers see these names as brands.
When you combine a company name with a brand name in a clear and consistent fashion, the brand name is the primary name and the company name is seen as the secondary name: General Motors Cadillac.
Simple observation will demonstrate how seldom customers will use a company name . . . when they have been given a viable brand name to use. “How do you like my new Cadillac?”
Nobody says, “How do you like my new General Motors luxury car?”
With this caveat in mind, a company is a company as long as the name is not being used as a brand. A brand is a brand. There is a difference. A company is the organization that manufactures or produces the brand. It is not the brand itself. Microsoft isn’t Word, Procter & Gamble isn’t Tide. Microsoft produces many products, one of which is Word. Procter & Gamble produces many products, one of which is Tide.
While this makes sense, it’s not usually the best branding strategy. Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise, the best branding strategy should be to use the company name as the brand name.
The WD-40 Company produces the WD-40 brand. The Zippo Corporation produces the Zippo brand. The Coca-Cola Company produces the Coca-Cola brand. Neat, simple, straightforward, easy to understand.
When you are a customer or prospect, the instant answers that come to mind are:
1. Cola. 2. Windproof lighter. 3. Lubricating spray.
When you are an employee of Coca-Cola, Zippo, or WD-40, on the other hand, the answer is usually different. It’s the name on the paycheck. It’s “my company.”
Managers are employees, too. That’s why management is company-oriented. And customers are brand-oriented.
Does the consumer care whether Toyota, Honda, or Nissan makes the Lexus? Probably not. But the president of Toyota USA certainly cares.
Does the customer care whether Nabisco or Kraft or Keebler makes Oreo cookies? Probably not. But the Nabisco marketing manager handling the Oreo brand certainly does.
Do you really care whether the publisher of this book was HarperBusiness, Simon & Schuster, or McGraw-Hill? (Do you even know without looking at the spine?)
But David Conti does. (He is our editor at HarperBusiness. And a good one, too.)
The view from the inside is totally different than the view from the outside. Managers must constantly remind themselves that customers care only about brands, not about companies.
It goes deeper than that. The brand isn’t just the name the manufacturer puts on the package. It’s the product itself. To a customer, Coca-Cola is, first and foremost, a dark, sweet, reddish-brown liquid. The brand name is the word customers use to describe that liquid. What’s inside the bottle is the most important aspect of the branding process. Coca-Cola is branding the liquid itself.
It’s not a cola made by the Coca-Cola Company. The cola itself is Coca-Cola, the real thing. This distinction is at the heart of an effective branding strategy.
A company that truly understands branding from the customer’s point of view would have never introduced a product called “New Coke.” How can you have a new, presumably better Coke? How can the real thing have been bad? Why on earth would you ever change it? It’s like introducing New God.
In the same way, Rolex is not the brand name of an expensive sports watch made by the Rolex Watch Company Ltd. A Rolex is what you wrap around your wrist.
Most issues involving company names versus brand names can be solved by asking yourself two questions:
Both names had better be the same or you have big problems.
Let’s explore what happens when you use both the company name and the brand name on the package. Let’s look at Microsoft Excel.
The “Microsoft” part of the name is redundant. Nobody but Microsoft makes Excel software. Since customers tend to simplify names as much as possible, Microsoft Excel quickly becomes Excel. “Let’s buy Excel.”
Microsoft Word is another matter. “Word” is a generic word. Furthermore, many of Microsoft’s competitors have used “word” in their product names. WordPerfect, WordStar, etc. As a result, customers tend to use the full name of the product, “Microsoft Word.” This is not necessarily good from the company’s point of view. As a general rule, you want your brand name to be as short and as memorable as possible. (Short names greatly improve your word-of-mouth possibilities.)
When customers feel they have to use both your company name and your brand name together, you usually have a branding problem. (Normally because you used a generic word for your brand name.) Take Campbell’s Chunky soup, for example.
Is the product Chunky soup or chunky soup? Customers can’t be sure, so they ask for Campbell’s Chunky soup. Campbell should have used a different brand name.
Take the Sony Trinitron. Is trinitron a type of cathode-ray tube or is Trinitron a brand name for a television set? Customers aren’t sure, so they ask for a Sony Trinitron.
As far as the customer is concerned, the easiest, simplest way is the Procter & Gamble way. Use just the brand name boldly on the package and relegate “The Procter & Gamble Company” to tiny type at the bottom. That’s how the company name is handled on Bold, Cheer, Ivory, Tide, etc.
But a case can be made for the middle way. Some of today’s more sophisticated, discriminating customers might like to know who makes a particular brand. They won’t, however, use both names together. Nobody calls an Acura a “Honda Acura.” Or a Lincoln a “Ford Lincoln.”
Furthermore, there is often interest in the trade (which includes retailers and distributors) about the company behind a brand. For example, whom do we order Tide from?
For many brands one answer is to put the company name in small type above the brand name. Customers who are strongly motivated to use only the brand name will hardly notice the company name. Yet the trade and today’s more sophisticated customers will be able to easily find the name of the company behind the brand.
The danger, of course, lies inside the corporation. With this branding strategy, you tend to get inundated with suggestions like, “Why can’t we make the corporate name larger? We’re wasting all these opportunities to promote our stock, improve employee relationships, build a better relationship with the trade.” (On second thought, maybe you should leave the company name off the package entirely.)
Look what happened at Gillette. Both the Trac II and the Atra razors were marketed with the company name the same size as the brand names.
Not a good idea. The brand name should dominate the company name.
With the Mach 3, Gillette has returned to basics. The Mach 3 name dominates.
No issue in branding is so thoroughly discussed as the proper role and function of the company name. And yet, in most cases, it’s a nonissue.
The brand itself should be the focus of your attention. If you have to use the company name, use it. But do so in a decidedly secondary way.