Molson Hart

Can you xerox that for me must be the exception?https://twitter.com/david_perell/status/1269018249053777920 …

The last thing you want is for your brand to become commoditized. If a tissue is a Kleenex, your IP is rendered worthless. Bad take.

If the item is something you search for on the internet, it’s good. If you want to get to the front page of a search engine, you type google instead of search engine. That’s good for google. The same is not true in a convenience store, so I agree with the tissue/Kleenex point.

It’s an attempt to codify something that need not be. For example, if ‘Peloton’ becomes synonymous with a connected exercise bike it would impair your brand value. If your product becomes commoditized (especially in the case of low switching costs) its generally problematic.

But if someone thinks “I might want to buy one of those new exercise machines” and they search Peloton, isn’t that a good thing? What am I getting wrong?

Because the product is not commoditized. When you search for Kleenex - you are looking for tissues When you search for Chapstick - you are looking for lip balm When you search for Peloton - you are looking for a Peloton bike, not generally a connected exercise bike.

Blake is right that if your brand is so strong that people associate it with the generic type of goods that is a win as he showed with Google (or Googling as it were ). Post is right that it is bad for your brand it it becomes the generic name for the goods in question. In