Mondelez28 Mar 2012
Much has been said and written already on Kraft’s excuse-for-a-new-name, Mondelez.
What bugs me is that hacks – I refuse to call them writers since on the topic of naming they don’t really don’t do their research and tend to like focusing on the negative – always love to jump on the latest high profile name change with much fun and folly. While there’s no excuse for a bad name, writers don’t understand the immense constraints in creating new names. Last I checked there were only 26 letters in the alphabet and yet when you consider that the name has to be free and clear of other trademark registrations – not only in the US but across the world – the task of finding a name that’s available is almost like winning the lottery.
Then, there’s additional due diliegence in the form of lingustic and cultural acceptability.
To put things another way, it would be almost like telling a writer, ok, write a 500 word article but you can’t use any sentences or phrases that have been used before. In fact, such a rule would allow me to avoid seeing Shakespeare’s ‘what’s in a name?’ hauled out for the umpteenth time in the context of an article on corporate name changes.
While I’m not a fan of Mondelez, the truth is, every name has pros and cons. Mondelez is distinctive, memorable and has ‘talk value’. And, the name has an embedded meaning ‘world + delicious’ although the idea is a pale facsimile of DIAGEO which was based on the idea “every day in the world, great taste”. From a name construction and pronouncability standpoint, DIAGEO is a far superior idea.
Mondelez, by contrast just looks and feels awkward but in time, everyone will get used to it and once it’s seen in context on product, signage, business cards wherever, the name will really stand for what this company does.