The Alt-0174 Award -- Inaugural Edition
Do you think I can deduct pedicures as a business expense because while reading 5-10 magazines in 45 minutes I get tons of material for this blog as well as all-round general branding know-how? I don’t think so either. But today’s pedicure reading directed me to a product that the phrase “long-felt need” doesn’t even begin to address – and one whose branding is stellar. I have decided to bestow my Alt-0174 award[i] on outstanding trademarks and marketing schemes, and my inaugural award goes to Bug Catcherz, and its NO SEE’EMS blouse front closures.[ii]
These women win at every level. First, the company name is fantastic on its own – suggestive, catchy, and anything but descriptive. Second, they’ve actually taken the name and carried a whimsical pest control theme throughout the website that works well for their products: devices to help women conquer clothing annoyances. Third (be still my beating heart!), they came up with a generic name for the NO SEE’EMS product: “blouse front closures.” That way, if someone wants to make (ignoring for the moment patent issues, as they’ve apparently got a patent pending for the product) a competitive product, the category has already been named, and no competitor can claim that there's no generic alternative to this cleverly-conceived trademark, not this time. I am impressed, truly.
Plus, the idea that they’ve found a solution for the heartbreak of gaposis is just thrilling, what can I say? Well done, ladies.
Smart product--smart branding. And thanks for not "explaining" Alt-0174. Makes me feel like a member of an in-group!
Reply to this
Well, I felt like a dolt for not knowing my keyboard commands--hey, I've only used a PC since 1981!--but I doggedly did my research and now have a resource for all of them. And yes, I figured it out. And no, I won't tell.
I agree that NO SEE'EMS is clever, but I do have a minor nit (as long as we're talking entomology, or etymology). Especially when capitalized, those three sequential E's present some visual confusion. I wonder why Bug Catcherz didn't go with the conventional spelling, "No See-Ums"? It would have worked just as well. Maybe, um, better.
Reply to this
Punzapoppin' there, eh? I have a whole new appreciation for the true meaning of "nit" and "lousy" and their formatives after one of my kids was afflicted this year . . . I do agree with you on the NO SEE'EMS spelling; maybe it's a dialect/regional spelling thing? Or, another reason that just came to me is this: if the preferred spelling of the bug term is "no see-ums," perhaps they selected a variant spelling in an effort to avoid a descriptiveness refusal? Not that I think the bug term is descriptive of the product by any means, but they may have been exercising caution with concern for the trademark's registrability. Even if they overdid it, I of course think such caution is laudable.
Reply to this
It just occurred to me that maybe they wanted to pun on "no seams." Although what's disclosed in the gap between the buttons isn't really seams, is it?
And their orthography -- "No See 'ems," in lower case with a space between see and 'ems -- helps clarify the mark.
Clever product.
Reply to this
Well, since I'm the inventor and person who named the product, I thought I'd just tell you the real reason for the spellling - No See 'ems. First, it was a trademark issue. Second, if you spelled the term out in using correct grammar, it is short for No See (Them) - double play on words (No See 'ems are microscopic mosquito-like bugs that bite when you least expect it. Our No See 'ems protect you from would-be peekers who you don't want to "see them" without your knowledge. The bug theme comes from our branding strategy to eliminate product issues that bug women. Hope that helps.
Love the blog and we ARE looking for a new patent and trademark attorney (ours is male and not very creative when it comes to working with our products)!
Thanks for the award!
Rebecca Whicker
Reply to this