“The word “iPod” has come to describe all mp3 players. It is part of the English language. Therefore, “iPod” is a generic trademark. You can argue that if you want, but it is true.”

Ok, I will argue this. Generic trademark and “describing all MP3 players” are two different things. It is true that the name “iPod” is used to describe most MP3 players but that’s because most MP3 players are iPods — 60% of them sold. But I have never, ever seen, or even heard an anecdote about somone pulling out a Creative Zen iRiver Rio 3.0 and calling it their “iPod.” Here’s one good reason: the only people that buy a Creative Zen iRiver Rio 3.0 are the stuck-in-the-90s, Staunchly-Against-Apple types who would never claim to own an iPod. (You know the type.)

It is true that Apple’s success is having the best product- but having the best name (iPod) reinforces it two fold. If someone else were to make a better MP3 player (or a better iPod as you say), and Apple were to just stop trying, it would still take two years before any noticeable number of people would make a switch, because Apple has the name. Having a great product brought Apple to the top of the MP3 market. But having a great name keeps them there.

I see where you are going about the Kleenex/generic trademark vs. the Designer’s Perception, but I think the iPod is a bad place to start with. It is a valid and often overlooked point that a good product can stand on its own, regardless of its name and logo. Perhaps I’m the one that’s out of line here— the iPod/Apple in is such a perfectly-intertwined combination of product and name. Look no further than the already-massive hype for the iPhone- people are excited that it will be a fantastic product like the iPod. But if it were being built by Samsung… I somehow doubt it would already be a household name.

Adrian, I mostly agree with your post, except when it comes to Target. Yes, Target’s logo has been around for a long time, but in general I would say that Target really was “catapulted to dominance on the wings of design”. Before Target started hiring designers and being very stylish, they weren’t any better than Wal-Mart, K-Mart and such. It was the design that made them stand apart.

generic trademarkicide™

or, in the words of snoop dogg

“trademarkicizle” haha

great article man, i completly agree with you. You can’t build a legend only with design. It’s necessary to change (or make from the beginning) all the behaviour of the company, the employees and the CEO’s (and etc) to achieve this goal.

That’s why iPod (and Apple) works… that’s why Nike and Target and Starbucks works too

I would like to take a second to be someone who is going to agree with Adrian.

I have heard many people refer to a misc MP3 players as an iPod. In fact one person I work with did, then within a minute shouted over his cubicle some comment about how it was a real iPod, he was too poor for that.

I would also argue that it isn’t the iPod name itself that will hold the iPod as the winning MP3 player even if it were to fall behind. Americans in particular are slow to forget a loss in quality and functionality, a perfect example of that is the Automotive Market. American cars were behind in technology, reliability and often times design for 10-15 years before the market really started to show a strong shift.

iPod being the best product has kept it at the top, but if it fell to being among the lesser products they could still have a huge following based on the memory of what it was.

Also, I don’t think it was the design that made Target stand apart solely. There was a big shift in the type of retailer they chose to be. Not only did they start to actually embrace design, but they also changed the type of product they carried and the type of customer they were going after. Target made a big shift as a company, and that made them stand apart. Design was an important part of that shift, but not the only part.

One thing that concerns me about your article is the bashing of hope in the last paragraph.

Yes. Designing a great identity for an unattractive company is like putting makeup on the pimply school girl who can’t get somebody to invite her to the prom. So for now I agree with the ugly duckling thing.

However you’ve all seen how styling can bring out a lot of otherwise hidden and probably unthought of genuine beauty. As little as a hair cut can change a lot for the observer but also for the person itself in terms of body language and self awareness.

First and foremost design is of course important since it draws people’s attention to a hopefully great company or product. That first impression has always been and will always be the most important way for most persons to find their way towards a goal in a competitive environment, whether that is the pet food isle, a shoe store or the supermarkets in a city. People decide whether they will investigate further (i.e. read the dog buiscuits box, try on a shoe or walk into a store) or if they’ll continue looking for now. In the end what lies beneath will close the deal or not, but our job as designers is to make people consider looking further into something rather than the others, ideally in an honest and modest manner.

The second really important thing to note here is, that just like people’s behavior can be affected by their appearance, a company’s self awareness (and the employees’ awareness of the company) can be greatly changed and aided by design. So while you might not turn an ugly duckling into a swan it’s a crucial step for getting a company to think about themselves and how they want to create an all-encompassing customer experience that’s not limited to the looks. I’ve seen design introduce culture into companies and it’s beautiful.

So who knows, eventually the duckling might just grow into a swan. Not right away, but maybe sooner than otherwise.

On a side note: I get the feeling that design that wins awards is often more appealing to designers than it is to the average joe. It looks good but does it work? Keep that in mind the next time you whip out your iNapkin.

And now feel free to flame me

Adrian you make some valid points - but miss a few things- I’d like to point out this link - which explains and provides a database of American Proprietary Eponyms. It would have been good reference to better explain exactly what it IS when a brand name or trademark becomes used as the reference term for a product. It IS what that brand name is derived from and then assumed as the default ‘product name’ for all products -like the iPod/mp3 debate- I note that the iPod it not (yet) listed. But you might have a point it could be in the future.

Also Coca-Cola is not exempt -early on it foolishly split ‘coca & cola’ in an advert (which was in two columns) the TM was then left only protecting the coca which allowed for the cola to become associated with other brands- generic in your words.

And what you finish with examples of, is a different ‘design’ than what creates ‘Eponyms’ -graphic design, etc. wont create ‘generic brands’ -great product design will and that is why it has not hurt Apple :) They have suitable patents and protection in place to try and stop exact replicas - but obviously not enough if you look at the iPhone and other ‘i’ products trying to cash-in on the success of a strong brand name.

Thanks, Dan. Another good read is the generic trademark entry on Wikipedia. It lists the iPod as a mark which has been registered as a trademark, and is also commonly used generically.

2 things.

I tend to agree with psesko. If your brand is accepted isn’t that the ultimate goal? I mean the idea of branding is to stamp the idea of your company/product into someone’s sub-conscious, so isn’t that a good thing if you are the generic brand?

I do agree, however, that the company has to continue to be competitive and advertise to sustain that loyalty, but I see it as a good thing.

2nd: I think you have made valid points about the design for car salesmen etc. Loved this, “With a great logo and a better name, Bob’s Electronics could really be something special because underneath those warts is a swan.”

We all know that design isn’t a fix-all. We also know that exposure and great products matter a lot too, but this seems to make a case against design not for it. I run into that frequently in meetings with clients who are doing well in their business, so in their words, “why do I need to pay all this money when we’re already succeeding?”

It sends deep shutters through the core of me to begin answering this question every time. I believe in the value of identity and brand loyalty, but explaining to a successful business owner why they need to re-work their collateral or even worse their identity is HARD AS HELL.

I’ve been on an endless search for marketing research and case studies to prove my point. To prove that in a controlled environment (as much as it can be anyway) with the same product and the same advertising budget and the same demographic…great design took it up a notch. I have yet to find this information or proof.