By silicon.com, 14 August 2006 16:50
The latest cracks to appear in Google's once ultra-cool public image are to do with a very po-faced defence of its brand and the insistence that the media must stop talking about 'googling' as a generic verb - because it could do serious damage to Google's brand.
This is about as humourless and petty an approach to PR as we've ever heard and one which confirms Google is heading firmly down the road of other tech companies who appear to have deployed their lawyers around about the same time they underwent a total sense-of-perspective bypass.
In some quarters it's being claimed that Google is still treating this as a bit of a joke and those of us reacting, well, like this, are missing the point. While the likes of CEO Eric Schmidt can maintain some levity, what right does the media have to be uppity?
Despite these protestations, we can't help thinking there is no humour about Google's stance. It's something which, granted, should be very funny but actually raises concerns that Google has now reached the 'diva' stage of its meteoric rise, recognised as the moment when a once humble star believes she has attained a suitable level of fame to get away with making ridiculous demands.
How long before we hear 'Eric Schmidt doesn't do stairs' or 'Larry Page must only be photographed on his good side'?
The problem Google has created for itself here is that it will inevitably fail in its attempts, so why bother and risk the moans and groans of the public?
One linguistics expert assured silicon.com that the cat is well and truly out of the bag now regarding the everyday use of 'to google' and she expressed serious doubts that Google, or anybody else could ever force people to stop doing so.
The other issue here is that Google should stop whingeing long enough to recognise when it's won.
Of course, if a brand becomes used in a generic fashion then the company loses some control of the way that brand is represented outside its own core messaging (though worse things happen at sea you know). But for 'googling' to now be synonymous with internet search means Google undeniably owns that industry.
In taking this stance Google is - in PR terms - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
One PR exec we spoke to expressed his own doubts.
"Will Google really be able to hoover up every use of the verb?" he asked rhetorically before correcting himself. "Sorry, that should be: will Google really be able to vacuum up every use of the verb?"
The answer lies in the question. Next time you're in the jacuzzi, hoovering the lounge or xeroxing some documents, stop and think what chance Google stands with this crusade and then try to come up with a reason why it should even try to wage it.
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Wholeheartedly agree with your article and enjoyed the humour. They couldn't have hoped to be more successful than to have their brand name used as a verb...although not used as a verb, I biro became the all-encompassing name for ball-point pens in England. What ever happened to biro, by the way? Now living in Canada, I don't have the answer to that.
2. anonymous
This article was apparently written by somebody who knows nothing about trademark law and is happy to flaunt that ignorance in a public venue.
Google is required *by law* to defend the trademark and prevent it become generic like Xerox or Hoover did. If use of the verb "to google" becomes widespread then nothing would stop Microsoft putting a "Google It" box in Internet Explorer that, in fact, searched MSN. The brand would become meaningless, and the law would not protect it because it would say, "well, why didn't you try to stop it?"
So whilst I dislike legal action as much as anybody else, Google is doing what any company would in its position. In any case case in the eyes of the law it's not winning that matters, it's trying.
3. Bob Oliver Bigellow XLII
The Media Needs To Relax
Simply put, anyone who wants to prove to a court they intend to maintain their trademarks, brands, etc... and not just let them slip into oblivion... are required to put forth some sort of effort. Period.
So, I doubt all of the senior management is running around panicking and writing up letters themselves. It is likely just the usual background machine that makes sure to send out notices based on particular events. That's all.
And, refreshingly, they even threw in a humorous way of wording the lawyer-speak. In the same way they had to create a huge lawyer-speak prospectus for their IPO, and included a little bit of humor and wit... they did the same thing here. Any lawyer-speak document which includes the word "hottie" in it should be taken with a grain of salt. It only exists so that they have documentation to support their cause if something leads to court later, but in the meantime... no harm, no foul.
It seems, if anything, the MEDIA at large has many more people typing up professionally worded documents complaining about Google's letters. C'mon. Does Apple need to release a new gizmo to give better news options?
On a side note, anyone who thinks Google shouldn't even bother caring to protect their brand because, after all, who is going to use the VERB "google" and mean some OTHER search engine? Well, don't you think the makers of Kleenex brand tissues or Q-tip brand cotton swabs might have thought the same thing? I mean, after all, who is EVER going to call some OTHER brand cotton swab a Q-tip!? And who in their right mind would refer to some other brand's tissues as a Kleenex? I would imagine that people at the time these brands were first created would have thought the same thing.
HOWEVER, every advertising dollar spent in mentioning "Q-tip" or "Kleenex" is likely just helping the competition, because there are a lot of people out there who just see these as nothing more than the generic products they are. The same might have happened with Jeep. I could make a vehicle that looks like a "Jeep" and someone will call it a "Jeep" and before you know it, every commercial about a "Jeep" will help sell my own generic version of the vehicle. The same problem does not exist with names like "Honda" or "Toyota".
That's just my two cents. Now I'm going to google some hotties.
4. anonymous
You folks should do some more research before publishing this type of article. The reason Google has to send these notices is that U.S. trademark law requires the trademark holder to defend the mark in order to retain it. If at some point Google needs to go to court to keep its name as a trademark, it has to show that it has spent effort defending that mark. It's not a PR stunt, they are simply laying the legal groundwork for any future trademark defense.
I.e. in a couple of years when the trademark judge asks "What have you done to protect the trademark 'google'?", the company can drop a big stack of these cease and desist letters as exhibit A.
5. jsaltz
Indeed, this is an abomination.
6. Mark Hosey
Screw Google. They just want the cheap publicity.
Personally I'm quite happy to continue to use the easilly pronouncable word "search" and I'd be quite happy if everyone else did too.
7. anonymous
I think another important point here is that when people talk about 'googling' they actually use google. This is different from when people 'hoover' using a Dyson.
This could change but if Google keeps its product up to scratch, I don't see why it will.
8. Some Guy
I'm sick of companies not being able to see past their own nose with things like this, they really think that people care about their "brand image" and "corporate profile"
People can use the word(s) google it, googleing etc if they want and it is not some guy who bangs on about not being evil to tell people what they can and can't say.
What is their problem, it is free adverting for god's sake!
Google used to have the best search engine but now they don't, it misses out loads of websites that I want to find, perhaps they now spend to much time playing with lawyers than actually making a decent search engine now
9. Some Guy
I'm sick of companies not being able to see past their own nose with things like this, they really think that people care about their "brand image" and "corporate profile"
People can use the word(s) google it, googleing etc if they want and it is not some guy who bangs on about not being evil to tell people what they can and can't say.
What is their problem, it is free adverting for god's sake!
Google used to have the best search engine but now they don't, it misses out loads of websites that I want to find, perhaps they now spend to much time playing with lawyers than actually making a decent search engine now
10. Dave
The primary difference here is that I don't actually buy a google product. Any more than I would buy a Yahoo product (do you Yahoo!). To Google has actually been included in some dictionaries referring to the act of searching the web. If Microsoft were to try and use the Google brand they would be taken to court. How can they take 1 billion people to court and stop them from using Google as a reference to web search?
11. anonymous
This article was plainly written by a fool. (Ed note. This is actually a bit rich considering some of the below... But do read on.)
You’ve proved the very reason why Google must defend the case in one of your poorly chosen quips: ‘Will Google really be able to hoover up every use of the verb?’ You have shown that no-one appreciates where hoover (the phrase) comes from because it is just a figure of speech...
(Ed note. Are you serious? If you'd actually read the article, rather than just stumbling over a few of the shorter words and then leaping to the wrong conclusion, you'd have noticed that line, 1) wasn't one of our "quips", it was quoting a source, and 2) He makes it very clear that he's aware where the phrase hoover comes from. To suggest you may be the only person on Earth who knows where the phrase Hoover comes from is laughable - this isn't your own little gem of knowledge, the rest of us are in on it too.)
Why was the ‘linguistics expert’ unnamed? If you can’t reference your source it’s not worth quoting. (Ed note. Here we go again. If you'd read the original article, which was clearly linked to in this Leader, you'd have read exactly who the linguistics expert was... instead you decided to dive in armed with few facts with a ridiculous comment. But thanks for trying.)
12. anonymous
It's a fair an true point about the company being obliged to send these letters - I bet they're none too pleased with having to do so but have chosen to bite the bullet.
It seems that the law is an ass, in this case: "What have you done to justify this being your trademark?"
It seems to me that a fair answer should be: "Well, your Honour, we're so good and so successful and have spent so much money and have so many users that people have started using our name as a verb..."
Case proven, surely.
13. Ray D. O'Shack
Game over... Google has lost it's trademark status as far as I know...
If you will recall, Google was very happy to hear that the word, "Google" was added to the dictionary to mean, "to search via the internet"...
Now they want to complain about everyone using it??? Sorry, it's a game over -- as far as trademark law -- when this happens...
On the other hand, it also means you have won the war, as far as the search industry is concerned...
14. Philip Kearns
Escalator and asprin used to be trademarks until their owners lost the right to use them as such because they failed to protect them.
I don't like excessive use of the law, but as another comment said they must go through the motions of defending their trademark.