Ok, so everyone in the office thinks I have swine flu. But this led to an interesting discussion over breakfast this morning about the swine flu brand.
I mean, we've had avian flu - which sounds a little bit more bearable, nicer, even more treatable. But swine flu - it just sounds a little bit dirty, sweaty and generally more unbearable.
Who decided on swine flu as the brand name in the first place. As a sub-brand of influenza (flu in the common vernacular), I get that monolithic naming protocol. But swine? Did they sit down and have a brainstorm about it? Did it go something like this...?
'Well, we could call it pig flu?'
'No, people don't want to be told directly that there's flu from pigs doing the rounds.'
'How about pork flu?'
'No, people will think it's from pork and will stop eating it.'
'How about porcine flu?'
'No, people don't get what that means'
And finally, they decided upon swine - an understandable collective term, but with such virulent and unpleasant associations.
Then we got thinking about other types of animal flu - Would donkey flu be ass flu? Surely not. And is it time that Myxomatosis had a rebrand - rabbit flu sounds quite good
3 comment(s)
I'm currently recovering from swine flu (ok, a throat infection) and I get VERY bored sitting about doing very little. So, I've been reading Ken Robinson's The Element - which I can't seem to put down! I thoroughly recommend it. Insightful stories, fascinating facts and a generally inspirational read to get my creative juices going until I can get back to it.
It's a really positive, egalitarian take on the nature of humanity, creativity and intelligence - that they can't be measured in any traditional formulaic sense and that they work hand in hand. Robinson's stance is that everyone is born with natural potential and abilities but we live in a world where our environments can't often nuture these talents and they can become lost. The Element is about finding your natural talent, nuturing it and loving it as an epiphany of what you were in fact born to do.
Life-affirming stuff and well worth a read!
no comments
Every time I walk through London Bridge on my way home I see the same backlit poster ad. It has been there for weeks. It says 'Tanya's Tongue is Tired' - no brand in sight, nothing, that's it. But it's amazing the amount of information that can actually be delivered through that message. The brand property - the typography - tells me the ad is for 3 and the message tells me that the network provides a lot of minutes (cost aside) for Tanya the customer to use - so much so that she's worn out because she's talked so much. She's gets to connect with her friends / family and is a happy customer for it. All this is just inference, but it's quite nice the picture you can paint because of four words.
The lack of overt branding I find the most powerful because 3 clearly feel confident enough in their values, tonality and iconic typography that they don't even need it. It smacks of confidence, but not arrogance.
It's interesting to see how big, strong brands in the public eye operate on a simple branding / brand property level. Sky is another good example of much the opposite tactic. They badge content - they own it with their Sky mark. Any possible image of TV content whether that's frogs on a stream, football or High School Musical - stick a Sky logo over the top and they instantly own it. Not only that, it gives the content a sense of credibility and quality.
These are both confident approaches, relying on years of brand equity being built and plugged in. Overt and covert branding techniques both have their merits - but the key to both cases is simplicity
7 comment(s)
Louise Kennedy
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 94