Stop “googling”?
So Google has decided to start defending the use of its company name as a generic word for Internet searching. The CNet article claims that Google intends to crack down on the use of the term “googling” in much the same way Xerox and Kleenex have done in the past.
Is this a good move, PR-wise? I don’t think so. Is it really a bad thing having your company name adopted into popular language? It took me a while to see it, but I can appreciate why Google may be scared to let it happen. Let me explain.
What happens if “google” takes on a negative connotation? How? Let’s say that a new technology comes along that blows Internet search out of the water. Something that makes it look old and out of date; think floppy disks for transporting data. If this happens, the term, “google”, referring to generic Internet searching, could start to imply a way of doing something that’s inefficient or awkward. Obviously, the term will always be tied to the brand and even if Google became the leader of this new technology, the connection between the word and the name would surely persist.
There’s one main problem with Google trying to defend its name that’s been pointed out by almost every person who has written about this. Google can’t stop people using “google”. It’s already become a part of the language. How do you stop the english-speaking public from using a word? You can’t sue everyone. Sure, you can sue the media for using it, and have a fair go at dictionaries for including it, but you won’t stop its everyday use. I’ve even heard presenters at Microsoft conferences using the term. It’s here to stay, and Google would be better off embracing it.
Damo
Follow me on Twitter
Nice post and covers some issues, however (always had to be a catch hey…)…
Google can’t embrace this, in the same way Xerox, Kleenex and so many others(1) couldn’t/shouldn’t.
The problem stems from an issue in Trade Mark laws across the globe that in effect means if your brand becomes a common word, you lose protection of that mark.
In simple terms it would mean that Yahoo! were able to have a “google” search and Google would be powerless at law to stop them.
Leave it to the lawyers to create a paradoxical situation in business where you want brand recognition however there is too much of a good thing. This is why you see companies like Hormel put out newsletters and marketing ostensibly devaluing their brand or removing a context from their brand at great expense(2), because letting it happen would be far more devastating and expensive…
As to how do you stop people? You cant, but sufficient advertising along the lines of “Use Google to search” would help prove to a court that you did everything you could and deserve to keep your brand. IMHO it’s too late for Google however you’d be surprised what a large legal budget and a few campaign contributions can achieve in the USA.
Simon
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
(2) http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm
Hi Simon,
Trust a lawyer to smash my arguments!
I think when I said that they should “embrace” it, I meant it more generically. I didn’t mean that they should encourage it or even publicly talk about it. I meant that they should say, “well, it’s happened, there’s nothing we can do and let’s look at it as a good thing, as long as it’s not blatantly abused”.
I take your point that if it becomes a common word they lose protection, and although I think I knew that already, it didn’t occur to me when I was writing. It is a good point and yes, if they do lose their rights to the word, then it could definitely be a bad thing for them.
I assume that it comes down to how aggressively they pursue offenders. I have no problem with them pulling up the media and other organisations who obviously overstep the boundaries (eg. “Find it by googling with MSN”), but to try to stop news sites from referring to searching on the Internet as “googling” seems absurd. Is there any harm in letting that slide? Surely they could just accept something like that as an (unintentional?) reference to their particular search engine?
If they do let references like this slide, are they accepting that their brand name is becoming commonly used and basically abandoning their rights to it? If that’s the case (and you seem to have suggested that it is), then it’s a terrible situation, and I guess they’ve got no choice.
I guess in summary, the fact is the word is there, and if Google show that they have tried to protect their rights to the word, that should be enough. My question is how aggressively do they have to protect their rights?
Damo