What's in a 'name'?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

There is a lot at stake when brands imitate their rivals in the guise of inspiration; plagiarism being the worst. A unique ‘name’ provides the much needed identity to help break the clutter.

Calling upon Romeo, to deny his father and refuse his name, Juliet argues, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” Going by this discourse in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, one gets the feeling that names are theoretically arbitrary. Cut this to 2012. Consider for instance two advertisements in print media dated July 4 in The Times of India, about Bennett Coleman’s Financial Times Supplement, which read as, “Business News Now Customized For Delhi NCR”; and the July 19 statement by John Ridding, CEO, Financial Times, in Mint and Business Standard, stating, “The Financial Times would like to make clear that the internationally renowned Financial Times newspaper is not in any way associated with the Indian title of the same name published by Times Publishing House.” Quiet intriguingly, the masthead font used in Bennett Coleman’s Financial Times supplement resembles the one used by the British paper Financial Times.

For once, let us put aside the legal nuances and the bitter title registration and trademark battle that the two have been engaged in for the last 18 years; and view the entire episode from the prism of ‘name’. Seen from this perspective, it is evident that names are not merely theoretically arbitrary but one which defines an individual, an organization and so on; which if not owned, we (individual, organization et al) run the risk of not owning ourselves. Name, in essence is an integral part of the BRAND – a unique marketing identity, which over the years by the very virtue of its presence and service offering conveys images of values, qualities and experiences. This is perhaps a reason as to why organizations spend millions to safeguard their brand names and on brand building measures – all for a ‘name’. Certainly, the brand value and all that it encompasses gets tarnished, when names are misused – names after all do matter.

There is no dearth of examples of such instances. Be it either imitation or plagiarism or piracy or counterfeiting – in terms of design, color, text, music, et al; the value of the ‘original’ brand does take a dip. It is quite different to be inspired and all together different to ‘copy’ and yet claim the originality of the work, design, music, creative etc. Accepted that as human beings we are seldom originalists – we are enhancers and developers, and that inspiration is a part of the game in any field of art; yet does it not make sense to copy the inspiration and not the outcome. We know, how the slur of plagiarism can dent an individual’s identity – noted columnist, Fareed Zakaria, is a case in point. Giving credit for the source would have done no harm; on the contrary it would have enhanced his (Fareed Zakaria – an individual’s ‘name’ you see) brand equity, solely on the premise of being honest.

There are cases wherein the name of the ‘brand’ of the product has been copied (with the finest of distortion in the way it spelt) and there are cases wherein the source of inspiration is apparent. For once, you would take Flair & Lovely as Fair & Lovely – well you could blame it on the persistence of vision or the lack of it. But, such counterfeit products do impact Unilever’s brand image. Yes, there are people who argue that counterfeiting such products confirm the original brand’s iconicity and it compels the original brand to innovate itself. Howsoever much I would like to buy the logic it definitely comes at a huge cost which could have otherwise been used for some other brand building exercises. Otherwise, how does one justify the emotional attributes that lead to a purchase decision?

The Financial Times vs. Financial Times episode questions the very fundamentals of ‘branding’ i.e. differentiation – emphasizing the differences and not the similarities. It is a classic case wherein the differences have been subverted and similarities highlighted. Is this blatant usurping of someone else’s brand identity just a ploy to thwart competition by creating an entry barrier of sorts? Imagine a case, law permitting, wherein all the business papers go by the name Financial Times – how would you distinguish? Probably you would argue that each one should use different font, color or may be a different ‘name’ – there you go, ‘name’. A different name in all sanity would lend a unique identity. As with individuals, organizations too love to be different and in fact they spend millions in convincing the world ‘how different are they from their peers?’ A different name, a name of its won, helps it differentiate at all levels – tactical, operational and strategic. Would it not be a mess to see competing brands with identical brand names trying to woo customers? If not anyone else, this overload of supposed brand differentiation would definitely confuse the customers. A unique name, brand name per se, would help the brand break the clutter – thus the importance of ‘name’.

Brands with unique names too have been found to copy the competitors (design, color etc., per se) – what this essentially does is to remind the end users of the competing brands. Creative inspiration is one thing while exact imitation is a different ball game all together. Brands, successful ones or even newbie, must avoid replicating the finer nuances of an existing idea. I had no clue as to how competing brands leverage an existing design and its finer details until my managing editor showed me a copy of a competing business magazine. I leave it upon you to guess the ‘name’. Thank God, they at least have a different ‘name’ – an identity that they can certainly call theirs.  I rest my case, and yes, I do have a name, and I go by the name –Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap.