Although we did not dwell on it at great length, last week’s
Campaign contained a fascinating news story with important implications
for media owners, particularly of print titles.
The story in question concerned a sister Haymarket title, the very
wonderful FourFourTwo (but it could have been about any other title
since the point is the same) which had successfully gone to court to
prevent an alcoholic drinks manufacturer, 21st Century Drinks, owners of
that well-known alcopop Jammin’ (formerly known as Tilt but changed
after Coca-Cola, the owner of Lilt, objected), from launching a beer of
the same name. It won the passing-off action on the grounds that readers
were likely to be ’confused or deceived’ (the judge’s words) into
linking the beer with the magazine, even though the plan was to write
the name out numerically as 442. Of itself, as I can testify having had
the privilege of reading some of the court documents, the case produced
some hilarious moments, such as discussions about team formation
terminology and the difference between 4-4-2 and the Christmas tree.
But the real point about the judgment and, therefore, this column, is
that it cuts to the heart of the issue about the creation of media
brands. This is something all media owners talk fondly about - even here
at Hammersmith Towers - although for some it is more a matter of wishful
thinking than actuality. Naturally, once you have created a media brand,
logic dictates that you then move into the area of brand extensions -
whether directly as in other media vehicles, or laterally as in other
products. One of the best examples of this is Cosmopolitan, which has
both spin-off print brand extensions in the form of Zest and books, as
well as non-print brand extensions into CDs, games, spectacle frames
and, coming to a supermarket near you, low-fat chocolate bars and health
drinks.
This, however, is where media owners with brand-status titles
potentially get into areas of difficulty. The more a title becomes a
brand, the greater the chance other parties might seek to ’borrow’ its
brand equity. The risk is therefore damage to the brand itself, but it
also inhibits its possible expansion into other areas.
For example, the Financial Times suffered this (and lost the case) with
the Evening Standard’s decision to ’pinkify’ its business section. The
FourFourTwo case is an example of the wider problems. For not only would
442 the drink have created problems with the magazine’s existing
advertising and other co-branding activities relationships with drinks
companies, but it would also have ruled out the possibility of the
magazine launching its own beer brand extension.
Clearly, the circumstances are going to be different for each media
owner, but there is a common lesson: safeguard your titles’ brand values
as zealously as Coca-Cola and Nike do theirs. Otherwise somebody could
destroy your reputation for you.
