SPAM: A Battle Worth Fighting?
Naturally, as players in this online world, we’re all QUITE familiar with spam. But in this case, I’m talking about SPAM (Hormel’s food product). A story on the news caught my attention this morning: “The producer of the canned pork product Spam has lost a bid to claim the word as a trademark for unsolicited e-mails.”
Even the news anchor reporting on the story was ridiculing the food company’s recent attempt. Hmm. Not a good sign, Hormel.
In this Fortune article, this little ditty is my favorite:
“Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, ‘Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?’”
The company indicates that it’s fine with the word being used as a slang term (can you imagine if they tried to fight that one?!), but they’re more concerned with it being used as part of product names such as SpamBop and Spam Arrest.
I can somewhat see their concern in a business sense. Somewhat. But this issue — this late in the game — is it a battle worth fighting?
What comes to my mind is the classic cartoon scenario of a guy in a boat that’s springing leaks. He’ll run to one end to plug a leak and three more pop up, and he frantically runs back and forth trying to fix them, so on and so forth until the little boat is overflowing with water and you see him go down with the sadly comical gurgle of bubbles.
But is that the case? Is SPAM (the food) sunk?
Honestly, I think we’re already well on our way to a generation that asks the very question Hormel is trying to avoid. (I’m picturing an 8-year-old asking, “Mommy, why did they name a can of ham after e-mail?”) And frankly, I had no idea that SPAM was short for “Spiced Ham,” from which the name was originally derived back in 1937.
Maybe that’s their problem. Perhaps all they need to do is kick off a consumer education campaign that reminds the public of the origins of SPAM’s name. That could help differentiate between the two. It would definitely help clarify that the name of the product is related to the actual food contained within the can — not those electronic annoyances.
I am certain of one thing: their current strategy with the trademark dispute is not the way to go. Seems the only results coming from that effort are ridicule and head-shaking.
Additional thoughts/recommendations?
Technorati Tags: SPAM, Hormel, trademark, pr, public relations, marcom
That’s a good question. This situation kind of mirrors Apple’s “podcast” trademark struggle.
Unfortunately I think it is very much too late for Spam to fight for it. It may have results as far as stopping companies and media from using the term, but I think it’s so ingrained now that people will continue to casually use the term no matter what. So is it even worth stopping companies and media from using the term if that’s what people know it as?
But who knows. With the right strategy, Spam may be able to turn the term around.
Comment by Owen Lystrup — October 13, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Yep, and I wonder if their efforts to keep companies from using the term in product names actually hurts their own image.
If anything, they need to work with the current situation.
I had a great marketing professor who constantly used the phrase, “You have to use what’s already in consumers’ heads.” His point was that there are certain impressions or ideas that are too well-established in the mind of consumers to change. He often used the example of cough syrup (the strong kind that tastes absolutely horrible). There is NO point in trying to convince people that the medicine doesn’t taste bad. That’s already a solid and “known” belief in the consumers’ minds. So what do you do? You work with that. You use what’s already there to your advantage. (For cough syrup, maybe the strong taste equals strong impact on whatever ails you.)
Comment by Erin Caldwell — October 15, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
[…] Those were the words I heard often enough at as kid when I was being cautious. I heard them from friends who tried to goad me into trouble making either with or for them. I heard them from many a male relative who simple mistook caution for timidity and didn’t really know what else manly they could say. […]
Pingback by Quit Being Such A Pussy — July 22, 2008 @ 10:59 am