Branding Lessons Learned From iSnack 2.0

    

 
 
    
  ‘A Brand should strive to own a word in the mind of the consumer’ Ries & Ries

The iSnack 2.0 scandal reminds of several lessons about branding which all businesses can apply.

 

Where did iSnack 2.0 go wrong?  

Simply, the name didn’t engage the customer. Initial  engagement occurred via Kraft’s naming competition, but the final selection was made without reference to the majority of their customers. Feedback showed the name held little meaning and was irrelevant to the product.

 

3 Small Business Brand Name Tips  

 As Ries & Ries say ..’If you to build a brand ..you must focus your branding efforts

on owning a word in the prospect’s mind.    A word that nobody else owns.’

 

 1. To ensure you choose a relevant brand name, firstly think about your product/service,

its core benefit, other attributes and where you want it to sit in the market. 

 

  

 2. Look at the other brands in the market place. How can your name represent your

brand’s values, personality and stand out? 

 

3. Consider your customers.  Does the name resonate with them?  iSnack 2.0 seemed a gratuitous effort to capture Gen Y’s without reference to their other target audiences. This is dangerous as Gen Y’s particularly are wary of marketing messages.  Yet some Gen Y comments overheard included:  

‘The ‘i’ is so nineties!’ and ‘Web 2.0 .. we’re heading towards 3 now!’

 

A Brand is so Much More than a Logo

We have previously written that branding is so much more than your logo. A brand is the customer

experience  at every touch point with a business.  Everything a business does  conveys meaning to its brand and  values. To reinforce a brand, it is vital to ensure it is consistently

executed across all communication.

 

 

The Process of Branding 

The iSnack2.0 example shows how getting the name right requires much thought and consideration, and typically results after a thorough consideration process. For businesses, following this process  will   avoid costly catch up activity and customer confusion which can inhibit sales. 

Comments

[brandhabits.net]

I agree and especially with brand being more than a logo, and in this case a name. Unfortunately, Kraft focused on name alone with a short-term marketing tactic at the expense of a brand that they've spent years building equity in.

They started the right way, garnering Australian opinion was important - it is their brand. But to dismiss it to capitalise on cheap publicity was a bit of a slap in the face.

[Anne Sorensen (Marketing Is Us)]

Thanks so much for your comment brandhabits. Did you know that Vegemite was named from the public so the naming competition for iSnack 2.0 continued this tradition. I believe they didn't balance the public input with greater strategy. If they had integrated the short term tactic into larger strategy and not made the short term tactic the entire strategy ..it might have been more successful. It certainly will be part of marketing folklore. Take care.