Archive for April, 2011

Brand names that mean nothing

Friday, April 29th, 2011

I’m always intrigued by brand names that are “different”.  It makes me wonder how the company came up with the name, and what it was intended to stand for – the “story” behind the name.  The purist in me shakes me head, but as I admitted in an earlier related blog (What’s in a name?), the realist in me accepts that this is simply reality, especially in today’s online world. 

One brand name that got me thinking was Zoosk (as in zoosk.com), the world’s largest online dating community, and Facebook’s #1 dating application, which has been around since late 2007.  As a happily married person I wouldn’t typically come across, or perhaps be aware of the site, but an ad on TV caught my eye.  My reaction – what a great name, whatever it is or isn’t meant to mean!  It’s short and punchy.  It starts with an unusual letter – and is also a bold move because it’s the last letter of the alphabet, which some would consider as being disadvantageous when it comes to listings, which tend to be alphabetical.  

The name also reminded me of something I learned about branding and selecting a name – that a name is often an empty vessel, which takes on meaning over time, based on what its customers think or feel.  It takes a wise (or brave) brander to settle on a name that appears to have no real meaning to it. 

The brand has been a huge success, that’s obvious.  How much of it is the actual name, which they’ve leveraged to call their community members “Zooskers”?  And how much of it is due to the offering itself and the experience its members have – i.e. that they’ve “gotten it right” and the service is simply better than what’s out there?  Regardless, the name certainly isn’t holding it back, and is more likely adding to the intrigue and appeal of the brand. 

What do you think about the Zoosk name?  Should brand names “mean” something?

Dangerous Journalism

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

I know this has been going on for years now (starting with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if my memory serves me well) but the recent unrest in the Middle East (not to mention the nuclear/radioactivity scare in Japan post-earthquake/tsunami) has really gotten me thinking about what I call “dangerous journalism”.  

It boggles my mind the risks that journalists take – or are expected to take by their employers – in going into war zones, or simply dangerous areas of unrest/upheaval such as the Middle East in the early part of 2011.  At what cost?  Death, injury, abduction?  And for what benefit?  Feeding our appetite for news, succumbing to the pressure to broadcast, scoring on ratings?   Would “citizen journalists” be a good alternative in these instances?

Presumably the journalists are agreeable to doing this dangerous reporting, but I have to wonder whether there’s an ethical or moral component on the part of their employers given the significant risk involved.  How far will they go?    

I’m certainly glad that I’m not a journalist!  What do you think about what I call “dangerous journalism”?  Or is it just me?

Piers Morgan Tonight vs. Larry King Live

Friday, April 15th, 2011

I’m sure when Larry King retired and his long-time show Larry King Live ended there was a lot of speculation about Piers Morgan and whether he’d be able to “replace” Larry King.  We all know it’s always a tough job to fill the shoes of a predecessor…expectations loom and of course comparisons are made.  

I was an occasional Larry King Live viewer, and I’ve remained an occasional Piers Morgan Tonight viewer just the same – initially due to curiosity because of how he was being “sold” to viewers in the lead up to the launch of the new show.  

Is Piers Larry?  No, but he shouldn’t be – he’s Piers, and that’s why CNN hired him for the new show – to appeal to a changing viewer demographic.  Is he shaping up to be all that we expected from the hype?  Not quite (and Larry King would agree) – he’s not that “dangerous”, but Piers is landing some great interviews!  One of the things I do like in him as an interviewer is that he is actually a bit “softer” than Larry, and he (so far) doesn’t interrupt his guests!  He may not have the long-time relationships with many guests that the older King developed over time, but he does seem to have a reasonable “arsenal” just the same, and likely the potential to develop these over time just as Larry did. 

I thought it was very bold of Piers to launch his show with one of the world’s best, and most popular interviewers as his first guest/interview, namely Oprah Winfrey.  On the one hand it showed that he could land the great interviews, just like Larry, but in watching the interview it was clear that he was in awe of Oprah, and he instead came across as somewhat timid and lacking in confidence – not the “dangerous”, arrogant, killer interviewer he was built up to be.  In many ways it felt like a very awkward interview, but good for him for going out on a limb for his first interview, and of course in the end getting the “thumbs up” endorsement from Oprah!  There was method to his madness!

While the initial ratings for the show weren’t where CNN would like them to be, I think they’ll find that this might be transitional as people get used to the “real” Piers Morgan vs. the one they were “sold” (or over-sold).  That, or maybe they got it wrong and Piers isn’t a good – or better – fit than Larry for the viewer demographic.  I guess time will tell whether the Piers Morgan brand succeeds in its appeal.

What do you think?  Is Piers Morgan a good replacement for Larry King?  Were we over-sold?