We’ve all been through it before. We come across a personal issue, over-analyze the situation, and then respond with an unnecessary reaction (whoops…). Well, the same thing can happen to brands. We call it, over-branding. And it happens to the best of us…

Over-branding

Over-branding often occurs when a company recognizes an issue, tries to resolve the issue, but reacts excessively.  To Netflix, this sounds all too familiar. Due to a rapid decline in stock prices, Netflix announced it was going to split its services into two brands:  Netflix and Qwikster. Good move? Ask Netflix. After assessing the situation a bit more (and hearing the public’s reaction), the company “qwikly” learned that two brands aren’t always better than one. Shortly after the split was announced, Netflix decided to terminate Qwikster before its launch. Better late than never.

Sometimes over-branding might occur for reasons that aren’t as clear. We are all familiar with Comcast’s rebranding as XFINITY. Looking back, it’s difficult to determine a clear motive for the rebrand. As one of the most successful media tech companies in the U.S., Comcast was (and is) a popular household name. Over its long history Comcast developed a strong and positive public image, so why would a company want to move away from a name that held an immeasurable amount of equity? And it is evident the rebranding effort has confused a number of customers. One of the FAQs on XFINITY’s website asks, “What makes XFINITY different from the service I currently receive from Comcast?” Good question.

Moral

Everyone can agree that branding is crucial for the success of a business. But it’s even more crucial to make sure it is done correctly. Here are a couple of things to consider when developing your brand:

• Keep it simple. A common obstacle with branding is over-complication (see examples above). As a brand advocate, it’s easy to get caught up in the intricacies of your brand – many companies want every detail to be showcased. Be sure to prioritize when addressing your audience. It’s important to keep things consistent, clear and concise.
• Seek out a pair of fresh eyes. Strong brands have passionate employees who often times see things through a company lens.  It is always important to get a third-party’s opinion – someone unbiased, trustworthy and knowledgeable.
• Think it through. Over-branding is often a result of rushed decisions. A new brand name, design and/or strategy is something that will touch every piece of your business. Take time to make sure your decisions make sense from every angle.

Typically our clients use an intentionally obscure project name to avoid internal rallying around the code name. Google seemed to embrace the methodology of marketing the code name, and has built an entire strategy out of the process. Enter Ice Cream Sandwich.

While I’m all for food references and love the imagery evoked by this new OS, the overall code naming strategy strikes me as an unsustainable practice.

Pros

• It’s Google
• The order/lineage is easy to understand … version C came before version D, etc.
• Desserts are fun and have an approachable personality
• It’s Google

Cons

• Code names should be code names. If a company puts more marketing efforts into their code name, do they build any equity into the actual product name?
• What is the strategy if there isn’t a recognizable dessert name that starts with the next letter in line for an upcoming version?
• As a namer, I wanted to ask about the story behind Ice Cream Sandwich; uncovering that it’s simply the next in line from an initial letter standpoint wasn’t enough for me. Cupcake is cute; short and sweet. Honeycomb referenced the structure behind the technology (and while I don’t classify it as a dessert, I get that it’s a sweet). Ice Cream Sandwich (intentionally missing the grammatically correct article preceding it) is designed to serve as ‘one OS everywhere’ but the name isn’t reflective of that messaging.

Personally, I would have preferred ‘Icing’ as the next in line. It’s one word, is typically referred to as the ‘best part of the cake’, and evokes a premium quality. Can’t wait to see what they do with J.

Remember the Razr flip phone of the early to mid-2000′s? Of course you do, because you either had one or looked on with jealousy at all your friends that had one, wishing you too could one day be as cool as them. But then came June 29, 2007, the first iPhone became available to the world, and the decline of the mighty Razr began.

In an attempt to gain the status the Razr once enjoyed Motorola announced this week that they will be reviving the brand with their new Android powered mobile device. When the Razr debuted in 2004 it quickly became the best-selling mobile device (pre-iPhone) and was one of the first devices to make a cell phone more than a necessity but a status symbol and desired accessory. When Motorola decided to revive the Razr brand with its new phone, it can be assumed they are hoping to tap into brand equity that the Razr brand once held in the marketplace.

So, with that let’s take a look at why a company might want to revive a brand.

First of all, brands need reviving after they’ve suffered some sort loss in the market and that more than likely occurs due to two factors:

1.Reduced Functional Benefits: When customers are making a purchasing decision they look for the product that is going to meet their needs, and while a product may meet those needs at one time or another as the customer matures and grows so do their needs.

2.Increased Competition: In the world we live in change happens quickly, and we are constantly bombarded with the “latest and greatest” must-have product, and this is particularly true in the technology industry. With all these product introductions brands are being constantly challenged to stay relevant and appeal to consumers.

Why you would revive a particular brand:

1. Emotional ties: even if a successful brand started to lose steam in the market for whatever reason, there is more than likely a certain emotional tie with that brand from its heyday. After all it wouldn’t have been a success in the first place if there hadn’t been any emotional connection. Brand/Product Managers may want to capitalize on consumer’s sense of nostalgia to help the new product enjoy the success of its predecessor.

2. Reduces Risk/Cost: brand revivals can be a valuable and cost-effective because there is the idea that an already known brand has a given head-start over a completely new brand, and so less needs to be spent on its introduction.

3. Brand Equity: if leveraged in the right way, and the brand equity of the original product is strong enough a new product can build on the equity the original possessed to carry itself through the product launch and beyond