I got to experience some visual eye-candy this morning. Well, it was more than just eye-candy. It gave me that warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy; like mom’s chicken soup. Commuting into Boston, the pool of white and red plates darting in front of me, lining up like soldiers, still feels foreign after all these years. But, this morning, in the sea of white and red plates, a refreshing flash of empire gold & navy caught my eye. I awoke from my commuting coma. “Is this real?” It’s on a brand new car and the plate itself looks brand new, but I seem to remember these plates from the 1970s and early 8os, during my childhood in NY.

Nostalgia—a theme we’ve been seeing for many years—creates positive consumer associations. Those that lived through the era enjoy being connected back to their youth – during simpler times. Those that weren’t born yet find it cool. Mixing nostalgia with what’s next is a win-win for a brand refresh.

What’s in a name? I’m pretty sure old Billy Shakespeare didn’t have spray lubricant and Napa Valley on his mind when he wrote Romeo and Juliet but that question has come up for me recently based on a couple of ads I’ve seen.

The first is from an online campaign  I saw by a coalition of vineyards seeking to protect “place,” the regions in which their grapes grow.

The second is a print ad for a new product from PB B’laster, a small but successful player in the lubricant category, that launched something called PB50. Can you guess the competitor they’re taking on?

Name is naturally an important part of any brand and these ads are trying to achieve opposing goals around brand name in their respective categories – the former seeking to prevent encroachment from knock-offs, the latter attempting to play off WD-40’s brand equity and poach users.

I’m not sure trying to steal brand name (or place) is a viable strategy in the long run. A product, or service, is only as good as the value it delivers. Name is a heuristic to which users attach experiences. If that experience is poor then it doesn’t matter if you come up with a clever smokescreen of a name, your product will fail in the long run.

If PB50 is worth its salt, it should be able to stand on its own. Perhaps the thinking is that playing off the name will encourage trial and the resulting product performance will drive repeat purchase and loyalty. I’m not buying it.

The issue of the vineyards is a bit more dicey. If cheap bottles are being sold as Champagne, the poor quality erodes the value of the French region and its output while playing in a different price range. I lean toward the belief that playing a game with knockoffs like this is a race to the bottom.

As I see it, a brand whose name is being encroached on can:

1. Choose to ignore the knockoff and potentially see share erode

2. Race to the bottom in order to maintain share and run the risk of damaging the brand

3. Push back as the wine campaign is doing while drawing attention to the competition

4. Spend resources on improving the brand and its offerings, counting on the user to see value, not just price

It will be interesting to see what WD-40 does. I’d go with option 4, not an easy road but one that allows you to act, not react, maintain control over that which is in your purview, and protect profit margins along the way.

What do you think? Would you choose a different option? Are there any good examples of brands that launched into the stratosphere off the back of another brand name or are they all just low-price players?