When starting a blog back in 2008, the hardest part was coming up with a name. But I only really had one criteria – it must not contain the word “Second”. This was before the Lab got all anal and declared they owned the word – it was when every Joe Avatar was bandying around their blogs with the word “Second”. It had fast become a cliché.
And then, of course, the Lab hired a lawyer who decided that they could (and would) own the rights to the word “Second” as well as a bunch of other words. Co-incidently (Actually, it really wasn’t) my blog immediately lost the by-line “News, Thoughts and Humour from Second Life”. Which now I’ve written that out, I need to add in a Registered symbol, but I can’t remember the shortcut key for that.
So as not to suffer the wrath of the Overlords, I’ll refrain from mentioning their brands. Instead, I’ll simply refer to them as They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (Yes, I have already put that on my Copy+Paste) say you can’t use their name as a generic noun or verb, and never use it in the plural or possessive form. I’m guessing most people are completely ignoring that, but if someone (i.e. Me) were to write something that They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named does not like, then they can release the lawyers, who’ll scream foul of possessive plurals and “doing words”.
They-Wh0-Must-Not-Be-Named are no longer alone in General Linden’s (Possessive! Kill him!) censorship policy, as this week, They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named joined them by announcing their own set of restrictions.
My favourite part of They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s policy refers to Messaging. Maybe I’ve missed a trick or something, but are they seriously restricting They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s brand name from being used in user-to-user chat? That does seem to be overkill..
CEO: Hey, what are you guys working on at the moment?
Legal Dept: Ummm.. *ruffles papers*. We’re looking at the brand protection at the moment, sir.
CEO: Oh? Is the brand under threat?
Legal Dept: Well… yes, sir. A music group has stolen part of our brand, and we’re drafting wording to..
CEO: THEY’VE WHAT?! WHO?!
Legal Dept: A band in England are calling themselves “Blue”..
CEO: Didn’t they split up years ago?
Legal Dept: You’re missing the point.. we’ll draft a 200 page memo for y..
CEO: Never mind.. just do what you need to.
Oh didn’t I mention that? They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named now own the word “Blue”. It’s like virtual world companies actually want to make it as hard as possible for blog authors to write about them.
Here’s an idea – stop being so pathetically worried over your brands when all you’ve done is stick together two commonly used words.
jaco on June 3, 2010
i wonder when they are going to file a lawsuite against hitler, because of the SECOND world war
Lalo Telling on June 3, 2010
I can shorten that advice to Those-Who-Demand-That-They-Not-Be-Named: “Stop being so pathetic.”
Tweets that mention What's in a Name? Second Life and Blue Mars branding faux-pas #secondlife #bluemars #trademark #branding -- Topsy.com on June 3, 2010
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CodeWarrior Carling, Prad Prathivi. Prad Prathivi said: What's in a Name? Second Life and Blue Mars branding faux-pas http://bit.ly/aj1d8h #secondlife #bluemars #trademark #branding [...]
Heidi Halberstadt on June 4, 2010
>>Here’s an idea – stop being so pathetically worried over your brands when all you’ve done is stick together two commonly used words.<<
I second that notion. Awwww shit, I see lawyers running…
Ellie Heartsdale on June 4, 2010
Serious on-topic comment: Branding policy is a double-edged sword. If the usage is not derogatory, then it acts as free advertising, which most well-run start-up companies want. Your blog is directly beneficial to Linden Lab (and Blue Mars). I don’t understand why they take such an aggressive stance on brand rights. One could make a case that LL should be paying YOU for creating and sustaining Metaversally Speaking! I’ll probably mosey on over to Blue Mars tonight, which I hadn’t ever considered doing until reading your blog.
Humor now: guess how I found my way here? With merely two clicks of separation from Mr Poenta’s place! He is the one and only fan of my videos, www-wide. N.B. Said videos are neither recorded as Second Life – Trademark symbol HERE – machinima thingies, nor have Second Life – Trademark symbol HERE – related content.
Also, I’ve heard rumor that Linden Lab is also claiming rights to the word “Life”. Bad move. Instead of “Still Life” or “f@#! life” parodies, I’m now seeing “Still Born” and “Second Death”. Can’t get much more derogatory than that.
Glenn Sanders on June 8, 2010
Hey Prad,
Thanks for writing about Blue Mars. I love the humorous post.
Really, i used to think the same way about branding policies. That is until i experienced brand confusion first hand. However, after spending many hours posting, tweeting, blogging and chatting with thousands of people to clear up the confusion, I have much less laissez faire attitude.
What happened? Well, there was a video posted on youtube by another company a year ago, as well as website information, presentations, and other activities that caused much confusion about the Blue Mars brand name. This company inadvertently clouded and confused our brand so much that it took months of dedicated effort to clear the confusion, and separate our company image from theirs.
It also created the wrong impression in the public eye that Blue Mars was geared toward big business, an exclusive club for large studios. Both are so far from the truth as to be laughable. (What? Don’t tell me that you feel for that misinformation too?
But go back and read posts about Blue Mars from summer and fall of 2009. You will find a huge number of posts repeating this same mistruthiness (sorry Colbert!).
This damaged our brand considerably and caused widespread misconceptions and negative impressions.
So, yes, it’s easy to poke fun at branding policies, and I chuckled along with the rest of your readers. But the truth is, these policies exist for a practical reason. Nowadays, when a person first learns of a brand or company, they research it on the web and youtube, then check out the social media to see what “the people” say about the company or product (because that’s the ‘truth’).
Well, what happens if 1000s of people are looking at, and linking to the wrong video, forum, blog, etc. due to brand confusion? You got it, prevalent misconceptions that are repeated often enough to become “Net truthiness”.
Seriously, if you had a strong brand, would you like to see it diluted, confused, and misconstrued? Or would you protect it?
Generalizing from the post and comments, we can all agree that Apple wouldn’t mind if you created an MP3 player and put the commonly-used word “Apple” on it, or would they…?