I’m sure by now most of you have seen the announcement of the new product from Segway and GM, the PUMA. The naming consultant in me is of two minds. On the one hand, I love the name. It’s short, punchy, and relatively easy on any non-native-English speakers they may want to sell to. Furthermore, it communicates agility, movement, and intelligence, all good things for a radical new vehicle to personify. So far, so good.
But on the other hand, the name has two huge flaws. First, it is already “taken” by a major athletic equipment brand. While there isn’t likely to be a trademark dispute over this name (the trademark office is smart enough to know that there isn’t much chance of consumers confusing a shoe with a motor vehicle), there is a big mindshare issue. Puma (the athletic company) has recently made a significant resurgence, and is once again among the leading brands in the category. Segway could have done itself a favor by choosing a product name with more room to maneuver.
Furthermore, the company seems dedicated to teaching us that P.U.M.A. is an acronym (it stands for Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility — but of course you knew that). Why? What does that really long, cumbersome, and generally forced extended version of the name add? Nothing, really, that we didn’t already know by a) the fact that Segway is selling it and 2) one look at the darn thing. Every time they push the acronym extension, they take away all the great sleek and agile cat associations that made the brand name so cool in the first place. The extended version is just trying too hard to do too much. Let the brand name carry the cool part and create a tagline or product descriptor to communicate the rest.
Well put. And I have to say, when I first heard about the PUMA, my mind went straight to the derogatory term Cougar, another thing all together. It just seems like they could have come up with a smoother, more fitting name, sans acronym. It’s meant to be a futuristic vehicle, why name it something that many people have a retro athletic association with?
What would you name if, if you had done it?
Great post, and I agree with you on all points, with the possible exception of one. As I sit here wearing my new Pumas, I have to wonder if you’re right–that there won’t be a trademark dispute. No one would confuse a Nike shoe with a Nike car-thingy, but my gut is that there’s no way in hell Nike would let them get away with that name. And I’m sure you know the courts would look at not only the similarity between the products, but the strength of the pre-existing mark. Maybe it’s against their best interests to bring it up, but it seems like they might have a case.
Interesting point Rob. I seem to recall a bike that was cobranded with, hmm, not Puma, perhaps Adidas. It was by a Belgian company, and one side of the main frame triangle was bike lock cable. A funky transport vehicle by another company is not so far a leap, considering this kind of far reaching branding.
I’ve been describing it to my friends as Segway’s new Go-cart Deathtrap. Maybe GoTrap or GoDeath for short. Or maybe just the Segway DT (deathtrap) to keep with the high-end alphanumeric automotive naming style.