Alright, so that was the noughties. What will happen in the, er, whatever the next ten years are called. Never mind, the last ten years whizzed by so it will the twenties before we know it and we can start labelling the decades again.

But will we think of this time differently because it has no label? Naming isn’t just about differentiating one product from another; it affects how we feel about the product. If Chanel No.5 was just known by a chemical formula, it really wouldn’t seem to smell so sweet, to borrow from last month’s edition.

Surely we can think of something? Go on, give me your suggestions (via commenting), even if they’re a bit risqué, or do I mean naughty?

Happy New Year!

I once hid a client’s competitor’s product names in my client’s website so that my client’s site would come up in searches (at his request). My client soon received a very formal looking letter demanding he desist. He complied, but was pleased to have riled his competitor so effectively.

Now it seems that the Google equivalent is happening. It is selling brand names to rivals to use in Google searches. Interflora searches are delivering both Interflora ads and M&S flowers ads (try it and see).

So here’s a big problem if you’ve managed to build the leading brand, only to find others can piggy-back on your success in this way.

But is it any different from putting your carpet shop next the leading carpet shop in the shopping centre and hoping people will check you out when they come searching for the leader?

Should Interflora be getting their corporate knickers in a twist even if M&S’s Stuart “Rose” isn’t really coming up smelling of, well, roses on this one?

What do you think? Leave a comment to respond.

Co-branding is a tricky business by definition. Brands are designed to help differentiation, so putting them together is not guaranteed to be a success. If you are going to attempt it, you need to take care. It seems Microsoft did not think through their launch gimmick for Windows 7 carefully enough.

The plan was to commission a special episode of “Family Guy” the edgy US animated series, celebrated for its irreverence. But at the last moment the plan was abandoned after executives viewed the programme and realised what they had done.

There can’t be many brands more ubiquitous in the world today than Microsoft, which needs to appeal to a wide range of people. On the other hand, Family Guy is almost designed to annoy the majority with its blend of taboo subjects and toilet humour, especially, surely, in the USA.

So how was this ever perceived to be a marriage made in heaven? Surely Family Guy was never going to be family viewing.