In these difficult times, armed with their digital voice, we can quickly see the changes in public sentiment. Getting on the wrong side of the mood of the moment can prove expensive.

Take something we all feel emotionally about: taxes.

In the UK recent studies showed that public sentiment quickly turned against celebrities who have taken advise to minimize their tax bills. Such schemes are often totally legal, but still feel wrong to the public. After all, the general public has no such access to the expert pin-striped financial advice and see no option for themselves other than to pay their fair way and therefore contribute proportionally to public services.

The comedian Jimmy Carr was a recent notable case. He had not violated tax laws, but he allegedly used a tax avoidance scheme that was deemed inappropriate in the court of public opinion. He spotted that misjudging public sentiment could be costly to the value of his celebrity and more expensive mistake than paying his perceived tax obligations outright. Carr quickly apologized and recompensed the public coffers.

But what of corporations that use sharp tax practices to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they derive income? Doesn't this have the potential to be perceived as even worse in the public eye?

Brands benefit from their popularity across the globe. They can also be harmed when consumer sentiment turns.

As reported in brandchannel, US companies doing business in the UK, including Starbucks, Facebook, Google and Amazon, are now finding themselves in the hot seat for paying staggeringly low tax rates in the UK. Accordingly, the risk of public wrath for the customers in the UK who help create wealth for these brands could be staggeringly high.

The corporate world has had public image and trust issues for many years now. If much beloved celebrity entertainers such as Jimmy Carr can be compelled to be contrite and publicly apologize, what are the dangers to brand value it has taken companies years to build?

Risk managers and tax advisers would do well to engage in listening to public sentiment and consider its potential damage to brand value. The lesson from the Shareholder Spring, the Occupy Movement and the rise of consumer power in the post-digital age is that there is little acceptance of separate rules for companies and individuals when it comes to rights and responsibilities. Being a good citizen matters for brands and consumers alike.

Starbucks, Facebook, Google and Amazon are all top 100 brands on our Best Global Brands 2012 report because, as Interbrand's CEO Jez Frampton notes, they have demonstrating an understanding of "the role they play in peoples' lives and respond accordingly — building on successes and making up for mistakes. They are constantly nurturing their brands to keep pace in a rapidly changing world; they know that every market is different, every interaction counts, and every individual matters. Quite an achievement in such turbulent times." But in this instance, on this issue, they appear to be teetering on the brink of a PR disaster that without an appropriate response will evidently unfold in the not so distant future.

Brands need to remember they have the power to change the world. And are expected to be good citizens within it. As Jimmy Carr found, misjudging public sentiment is no laughing matter. Playing fair and remembering how savvy consumers are in a world with constant global information are keys to building better brands now. As Tom Zara and Peter Cendella note in Citizens All: The New Rules of Corporate Citizenship, "It’s about the credibility of a company’s culture of citizenship."

 

Graham Hales is CEO of Interbrand London.

 

Apple recently commemorated the first anniversary of the passing of its former CEO. On their website was a video of Steve Jobs’ memorable speeches, beginning with a classic photo of him with an old Macintosh computer. Now a year later without their visionary leader, many are wondering how the company has done and will do.

Apple is one of the top risers in Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2012. The brand saw a 129% rise in brand value and now ranked #2 from #8 in 2011.

Steve Jobs left us with an impressive array of iDevices, which are arguably his biggest contribution to this generation and the next. But products cannot exist without the brands that represent them. So let us look at Apple’s primary offerings and their trademarks. Everyone is aware that the first leg of Apple’s patent battle against Samsung is behind them, but how many trademark disputes has Apple had to endure?

First, Apple unveiled the iPod® in October 2001. Steve Jobs called it a hard drive that could put a thousand songs in your pocket. Mr. Joseph Grasso, sole proprietor of a company called Web Pods, Inc., for “public internet kiosk containing computer hardware,” initially owned the iPod mark. Mr. Grasso assigned the mark, for an undisclosed amount, to Apple in March 2005.

Six years later, Apple launched the iPhone®. Jobs said that with the iPhone, Apple is going to reinvent the phone. Apple sought to obtain a trademark for their iPhone, but the US trademark office refused their application because of possible confusion because of an existing registration for the same name.

The existing registration belonged to Cisco Technology, Inc., for “computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks.” Cisco’s iPhone is a line of VoIP telephone handsets. Cisco’s use of their iPhone mark before Apple launched its iPhone was sporadic. They did file a Section 8 affidavit meaning they still want to keep the registration, but did not file a Section 15 affidavit, meaning they cannot show continuous use for five years.

Some called Apple a “trademark bully” as ownership of the mark remained unsure. Sometime in 2008, Cisco and Apple “contracted” out the confusion issue raised by the trademark office. Through a consent agreement signed in June 2009, Apple overcame the potential confusion with Cisco’s iPhone.

They agreed that their “respective uses of the mark IPHONE are not likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception.” This consent agreement was approved by the trademark office, which led to successful registration of “iPhone” by Apple. To date, the amount Apple paid Cisco remains undisclosed, and other terms of the agreement remain confidential. Both companies’ websites state that either can freely use the iPhone mark on their products throughout the world.

Before he died, Steve Jobs announced the iPad®. There was a pending application for registration of the iPad mark by Fujitsu Transaction Solutions, Inc. for a “handheld computing device for wireless networking in a retail environment.” Fujitsu failed to respond to the trademark office’s office action within six months, and it was considered abandoned, thus making it free for Apple’s registration.

Let’s not forget the infamous trademark battle Apple went through two decades before the first iPhone. Apple Computer (Apple Corporation’s former name) battled with Apple Corps (parent company of Apple Records, the Beatles’ recording company) for the Apple mark until they settled with the condition that Apple Computer cannot enter the music business while Apple Corps cannot enter the computer business. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again in 2003 when iTunes was launched for breach of that settlement agreement, but the Court ruled in Apple Computer’s favor.

Icloud Communications sued Apple when Apple launched the iCloud service in June 2011, but the former voluntarily dropped the lawsuit and renamed its company Clear Digital Communications. The dispute between Apple and Amazon over use of “Appstore” is still pending, as is the application for registration of the Appstore mark by Apple, which in turn was opposed by Microsoft that claimed the term is “generic.”

Indeed, Apple has a very colorful trademark prosecution and litigation history and that might strike some as a habit of “name now, worry about trademarks later.” But perhaps the underlying thrust by Apple here is that when creating such iconic, innovative products, you also want the perfect name and brand for it: one that embodies the passion in its creation; the genius in its design and development; and the enjoyment and awe that every user experiences with the iDevices.

Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2012 report said it best: “Jobs understood that a brand is more than a logo…He also recognized that a brand is what connects a business with the hearts and minds of consumers. Simply put, Steve Jobs understood that a brand is uniquely capable of humanizing a business — and that is precisely why so many of us are Apple ambassadors today.”

Karla Aspiras is a Trademark Analyst at Interbrand NY.

It was not so long ago that corporate promotion was seen as something unnecessary and frivolous—a waste of money. But, as established markets mature, new markets grow and competition within industries grows fiercer by the day, corporations around the world are increasingly becoming aware of the enhanced value that corporate branding strategies can provide.

In today’s global business environment, achieving a unique position and securing competitive advantage is not easy—which is why the corporate brand must be cultivated, communicated and strategically managed. While it’s also important to establish a brand identity for products and services, few global businesses can rise to the top purely on the virtues of the products and services they offer. Today, there are other requirements for increased sales, profits, and status with consumers—and, with the strongest brands always upping the ante, there are new expectations.

What makes a corporate brand stand out?

If you ask fervent brand loyalists why they love a product so much, they may talk about flavor, features and specs, but what they really love is the brand. Take Apple, for instance. In any given cycle, competing products on the market prove to be comparable or even superior in function, but not all of them have been widely adopted. Why? It’s the power of the corporate brand and everything it exudes and represents.

A strong brand is about building and maintaining positive perceptions in the minds of customers. This takes time to establish and resources to maintain, but an effective corporate branding strategy can help a company implement a long-term vision, create unique positions in the market place, unlock leadership potential within the organization, and make the most of both tangible and non-tangible assets. The bottom line is: Products come and go; trends change, but a corporate brand, if properly built and managed well, will last a long, long time.

Building a strong corporate brand

Streamline

Trying to adapt to different cultures, languages and the demands of different consumer segments feels, at times, like an impossible task, especially when competition is already high. That’s why it’s preferable to strengthen your corporate brand and let the people who resonate with what you stand for come to you, which will allow you to expand your product footprint. An established, well-known brand doesn’t have to work as hard to sell to a new market. If a corporate brand is strong, the desire for that company’s products and services will have already been seeded.

As the global market consolidates, trademark and patent issues become more crucial, and it becomes easier to market internationally, the influence of the corporate brand will grow. Certainly, marketing a master brand worldwide is ultimately more cost effective than putting constant effort (and immense resources) into supporting myriad brands.

Be compelling

The only way to get people to make that all-important emotional attachment to your company is to give it a personality, values and qualities that people can’t help but admire. This personality will attract talent to your organization, build a dynamic culture, and influence the look and feel of products, packaging and store environments. It will guide and eventually permeate everything your company says or does. Defining your corporate brand in a compelling way—and living the essence of that brand—will touch people and build strong connections which lead to loyalty, word-of-mouth, and increased profits.

Be strategic

Innovative companies with strong brands like Google and Amazon have their sights set on the long-term, not the next quarter. Establishing a corporate brand requires a commitment to product consistency, a clear set of values and a long-term plan for marketing. Focusing on the future, while managing day-to-day operations, encourages an emphasis on quality and sustainability and drives the entire company toward a shared vision. Deep, thorough thinking about where you want your corporate brand to be 5, 10 or 20 years in the future will influence how the brand is managed. In order to make the best moves in the present to help your brand grow, evolve and succeed over time, you have to be strategic.

Be consistent

Consistent imagery and color schemes allow customers, partners and employees to immediately recognize products or a company’s presence as a sponsor at every touchpoint. An ever-present, well-coordinated visual identity maintains consistency between product lines, version changes and different markets. In a crowded marketplace, if consumers can recognize your brand’s unique look and characteristics and easily distinguish your company’s products from competing products, it’s a huge competitive advantage. Further, messaging that consistently conveys your company’s vision, values and personality is equally important and helps to build the emotional bond between consumers and the brand. When well-aligned and kept consistent over time, effective messaging and a strong visual identity leaves a lasting, positive impression on consumers, strengthens and enhances a company’s culture and builds a strong corporate brand.

Be relevant

Corporate branding allows marketing efforts to easily target the most appropriate segments for product offers. Distinguishing a company by lifestyle, geography and socio-economic factors, branding helps consumers select products that are most appropriate for their needs and fulfill their wants and desires. Corporate branding also supports pricing strategies for specific target markets. A value brand, for instance, may present a friendly, accessible image that appeals to everyday people who are more concerned with price and function than aspiration. A luxury brand, on the other hand, can justify a higher price point by presenting a refined, high-class image and aligning its products with a glamorous and desirable lifestyle. Know whom you’re targeting and shape your image and messaging accordingly.

A recognizable, conventionally conceived logo and the classic array of marketing tools utilized in past decades are no longer enough to secure a competitive edge in today’s global marketplace. A compelling brand that projects an inspiring or relatable personality, interacts with consumers, maintains consistency and relevance over time and is strategically managed will rise above competitors—as the brands on our Best Global Brands report clearly demonstrate.

Jeremy Sampson is Executive Chairman of Interbrand Sampson Group.

The dust has settled from “Reveal Day” where The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) CEO Rod Beckstrom declared, “The Internet is about to change forever.” We find we’re left with more of an indication of the shape the internet might take in the next few years than a solid sense of now having all the answers.

What was shared is a list of who paid ICANN $185,000 a pop for the opportunity to potentially transform the online landscape. $357 million in application fees later, we also know the words they will use to begin this transformation.

The window to apply for new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) names opened Jan 12, 2012 and closed May 30, 2012. ICANN received 1,930 applications for 1,410 different strings, which would run those approved $25,000 for the annual fee, plus technical costs.

More than 700 of these applications involved various overlapping strings. While ICANN assures it will thoroughly vet applicants and choose the best for sought-after strings, if ties arise, we could see some of the various 231 applicants become embroiled in bidding wars.

A few of the hottest strings include:

• With 13 applications: .app

• With 11: .home, .inc

• With 9: .book, .llc, .shop

• With 8: .music, .movie, .blog, .design

• With 7: .store, .ltd, .news, .mail, .hotel, .cloud and .love

There was, perhaps surprisingly, only one application for .beer, but .dog saw three and .pizza four. Strings like .tech and .cpa tied with six and .baby was as popular as .game with five applications. Environmental themes garnered some popularity with four competing for .eco and .green, while two fight for .earth.

Pontificium Consilium de Communicationibus Socialibus (Pontifical Council for Social Communication) filed for .catholics, which will be a closed register. The only other denomination name we saw applied for was .mormon by IRI Domain Management, LLC. The American Bible Society applied for .bible, dot Faith Limited applied for .faith and .christmas was sought by Uniregistry, Corp. Asia Green IT System applied for .halal, .islam and .persiangulf.

It’s also interesting to note:

• Conspicuous by their absence are: Facebook, Twitter, LinkeIn, eBay, the Olympics and The Red Cross. None of these companies appear to have filed for any TLD extensions.

• Google looks to have filed for 101 strings. Amazon filed for 76. The two could face off over 20 different strings, including .music, .movie and .play.

• Microsoft filed for 11 TLDs, including its name and .bing, .hotmail, .windows and .xbox. While Apple applied for just .apple.

• Donuts Inc. applied for the most. It sought 307 gTLD strings such as .art, .blog and .charity, costing the company a whopping $56 million in application fees.

• Although the ANA (Association of National Advertisers) has been an outspoken critic of ICANN’s initiatice, more than 90 of its 500 members ended up applying for a new TLD. Home Depot, Accenture, Dell, Samsung, Allstate and Capital One, for example, all filed for their own names.

• GE had to make do with .GEcompany because of the 3-character minimum requirement.

Instead of processing all applications simultaneously, ICANN will evaluate them in batches of 500, taking approximately six months. Thus it is very possible that some TLDs will be up and running before ICANN has even started reviewing other applications.

The effect this internet expansion will have on brands, trademark protection strategies and domain name portfolios remains to be seen – but brand owners need to be ready. The good news is the published list offers the chance to identify potential risks and benefits to the internet expansion.

Brand owners should immediately review the application list to determine if any of the new TLDs consist of or incorporate their trademarks. It’s wise to see what the competition is up to as well. Note if a competitor has applied to own a generic industry term that could leave other brands at an unfair disadvantage.

Once the list is audited, it is strongly recommended brands be ready to develop a plan to address problematic TLDs. Consider filing objections via public comment (now through August 12, 2012) or legal rights objection (now through January 13, 2013). And be prepared to respond to any objections to applications from competitors.

Watch the developments of the Trademark Clearinghouse, intended to provide limited protections for trademark owners when second-level registrations within new TLDs are available, closely. Deloitte and IBM were announced as the service providers for implementing and managing the Trademark Clearinghouse, scheduled to open in October 2012. Brands will need to decide if they need to register second-level domains in any of the new TLDs that launch as soon as 2013.

The key here is vigilance. The Trademark Clearinghouse, as well as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and sunrise periods are there to help. The onus to monitor, however, is on the brands themselves.

Rod Beckstrom announced that trademarks “…are country specific, domains unique. The two will never match up exactly.” ICANN has admitted it has put aside approximately $120 million form fees collected to cover any future legal costs.

While we wait and see what the batching/digital archery process brings, we can ponder the following:

• Will Facebook challenge Amazon’s application for .like?

• Who will get .cloud? Amazon? Google? Symantec? Or one of the 4 other applicants?

• Will string confusion objections be filed by .guardian or .theguardian?

• What about .bank vs. .banque? .vote and .voting? .web vs. .webs vs. .website?

• When ICANN promised it was expanding the internet landscape, it wasn’t kidding. We potentially have .apartments, .condos, .realestate, .realtor, .realty, .rent, rentals, .villas and .rightathome from which to choose. There’s also .storage

• Is Kerry Trading Company really looking to own .kerrylogistics or is .logistics what they intended?

• Is the applicant for .dotAfrica looking to own .africa perchance?

• What were they thinking? .online, .rodeo, .ketchup, .spreadbetting, .cleaning, .ninja, .ooo, .boo, .RIP, .dot? And did three different companies really file for .sucks?

The online landscape is set to evolve. A new internet is nigh. .wtf – filed by Donuts, Inc. – indeed.

Jerome McDonnell is Group Trademark Director for Interbrand.

iPad is described as the magical window where nothing comes between you and what you love. If the capital P becomes at risk for deflation then it becomes a nominee for a new dictionary word to mean tablet computers. The magic of Apple disappearing by the generic use of iPad is a ghastly look.

Apple dominated the tablet category with nearly 75% market share in 2011, but its share is dropping because of an increase in competition. The generic use of a brand name allows the competition to accelerate the sales process in the short term. Major brands like Microsoft and Amazon are not arriving to the market with the use of iPad, but their customers may use the term to refer to their products. Customers may not be mistaken by the actual brand, but they’ll begin to cross attributes between brands. The users of Microsoft “iPads” allow them to find what they love through the lens of a different brand.

It’s been pointed out that the generic use of iPod gave Apple a boost in the market. Others say the conversation around iPad genericide is overreaction as we all said the same thing about the risks of the generic use of Google. The difference is we live in a post Steve Jobs era. Does Apple really want to share Jobs’ legacy with other brands?

Interbrand advises brands to actively protect against genericide to drive choice, promote loyalty and command a premium. Trademarks protect identity and guide the market real estate for brands to promote its persona and interactions with their audiences. They are the promise of the brand, which serves as a sign of trust and strengthens customer loyalty. Create market share dominance through loyalty over genericide. Also, trademarks allow brands to differentiate, whereas generic use only serves to inform consumers.

What do you think? Does Apple need to protect the capital P to indicate the differentiation of iPad from other brands? Does anything happen to the legacy of Steve Jobs over the next 10 to 15 years if they don’t protect it? What could a lack of legacy mean for Apple?

Kathryn Geraghty is a Trademark Consultant in Interbrand's Verbal Identity group.