Potential google issue in the future.
 

With winter in full swing which results in staying indoors more often, I have also started watching more TV. I have noticed that google is being used a great deal in TV shows and movies. The word is actually transforming into a verb.

Is google lined up to be the next escalator, linoleum, zipper, yo-yo, or asprin. Or will they be able to pull it out like Xerox?

For those that have no idea what I am talking about oh well.

They are already a verb. Google it and see.

You missed the question.

But is this really something wrong ?

I mean ... people say their name everyday... it must be good

For everyone else no it is not wrong. For them yes it is.

Google pays good money sometimes to have thier name said in a show. But either way they have to release the right to use it.

I guess that they feel that it is worth it.

Nah these are not paid spots. Talking news shows and so on. Though I see it pop up in many TV show scripts as well.

And no they do not have to release the right to use it, they have to enforce the right to use it.

Well, if that does happen, i doubt we'd see any lawsuits if they made it in to the dictionary for site owners such as the guy who own booble.com

Would certainly be interesting to see.

Regards,

Lee

if im not mistaken the word google has already been added to websters dictionary as a verb.

Online version says no. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/google

Though if it is in the printed version, that is not a good thing.

looks like i was mistaken

"What words didn't make the cut?

Ringtone, netizen, Asiago -- it's a kind of cheese -- some new verbs derived from trademarks, like TiVo and Google. You know, "Google this." And bling bling did not make the cut."

but i hear it almost daily, from regular people who do not have jobs on computers. .

sorry ,but this thread makes you look REAL REAL REAL dumb !! !jeez , what an idiot ? ? ? could it be? googling is going to be a verb ? ? hmm, could it ? ? hmm, think think , lol idiot

I don't see why it would be a problem for google. I mean, they're on the internet, so why would it be bad if using a search engine was called googling? It isn't like Yahoo! can run adds and say "For best results on finding information, google at Yahoo.com!"

I would think your example only applies to physical things...

I fail to see your logic, specfically as to how brand recognition or saturation is bad for a given company.

Who looks dumb?

His point wasnt that it would become a verb (which it clearly has) it was that the term 'to google' would be applied to all generic internet search even when not performed using google.

Examples:

- many people call any form of generic ASA 'aspirin'
- nearly everyone calls tissue 'kleenex', which is a specific brand

This dilutes the value of the brand by lumping in lower quality generic versions.

So again tell me - who looks dumb?

The question was not if it is going to be a verb.
As for looking dumb, I could care less what most think of me. Though at the same time those with even a twinkle of business sense understand what I am talking about. So if you do happen to care what people think may I kindly suggest you remain silent from here on out.

Google has plans of world take over.

it ADDS to the brand , only an idiot would think it dilutes the value

Bingo. Asprin was a trademark along with others I mentioned. Keyword being was. Xerox had to aggressively enforce its trademark or face loosing it as it became an everyday word meaning photocopy.

I can not argue, your obviously correct in your reality.

many brands would be more than happy that their name would be used for the term in general

or Colgate here in the Philippines.

Please O wise one fill us in on some.

no need to fill the clueless in

but I can say that Xerox made a mistake ,

and now they regret it ,

its old shool thinking to assume it would be a bad thing that your brand is used in that way

are you over 50 ?

Please explain in your words why Xerox would regret it and what they would gain and or loose.

I would have to agree with Deputy Chief.
Growing up in Texas people would ask you..."would you like a coke?"
You'd say "yes."
Their next question would be "what kind of coke?"

"I'll take a Dr. Pepper."

Now who's brand is being diluted there? LOL It sure as hell is not coke's when that is the first thing that rolls off everyone's tongue.

It would IMO be any other brand who is referred to as coke.

You have made an impact on culture when your brand becomes the defacto term to describe all other products in that same line.

Same thing happens to various brands all over the world... Here in Poland 'adidas' is the general word for sport shoes, many younger players use the word 'playstation' for gaming console and even though most people use our local version of 'to xerox' (kserowac), 90% of them doesn't even realize that there's a company named Xerox.

It's fine and dandy if your brand is associated with good things. What if it is associated with bad things? (example: spam)

Well let's look at Mickey Mouse

a lot of people don't know it's in the dictionary and has a derogatory connotation.

Mickey Mouse
adj. Slang

1.
1. Unimportant; trivial: ?It's a Mickey Mouse operation compared to what goes on in Lyons or Paris? (Jack Higgins).
2. Irritatingly petty: the school's Mickey Mouse requirements for graduation.
2. Intellectually unchallenging; simple: His Mickey Mouse assignments soon bored the students.
3. Melodramatic or sentimental. Used especially of popular music.


Now we all know Mickey Mouse is anything but trivial, the character has helped launch an empire...and I don't think it's affected Disney at all ;)

In a way yes. Unless of course eventually you loose your trademark on that brand because of it. There was a reason Xerox went to the mats and threatened to take legal action against copy stores for saying they offer Xerox's instead of photocopies.

Very interesting as always, Eros. :thumbsup

I thought this was SE related. Another 11 minutes wasted on a "when is a tree not a tree" type thread :Oh crap

I think Google is in danger of being too mainstream. That's not a good thiing considering it's base of users like being on the cutting edge of web technology. A startup could easily come along that provides even more relevant results and hurt Google next year.

The worst part is that the startup wouldn't even have to spend a lot of marketing dolars because it's promotion would be viral.

How can a company that depends on ad-based revenue have too big of an audience?

Yahoo tried it with their "Do you YAHOO?" campaign. It never took off. If I were google I'd try to get my product/service in as much of the common vernacular as possible.

Ah, there's the rub. I didn't say they were getting too big, I said the name is getting too mainstream. There's a difference.

Sometimes part of the marketing department's job with certain brands is to keep it's edgy, underground-ish vibe while allowing it the room to grow into the larger company.

The hardcore non nonsense superior search algorithem is what draws it's core crowd of users to it. It's losing that aura with every new deal it does.

It will be easy for a new company to come along and offer a better search experience and attract that base of users.

MSN, Yahoo, AOL and the like are grandfathered in. They don't have certain standards to uphold unlike Google. They can and probably will take Google's lead in the ad/revenue model at some point in the next few years.

Google is still a relatively new company to a lot of non techy surfers so there's no loyalty there. If Google isn't careful and they lost their early adopter base they will have no shoulders to stand on.

According to some insiders, the fight for commerce over quality is raging inside of the company. Anything can happen at this point.