01/09/2005 10:16:00 AM 
Polaroid one of the icons of American business has just been sold to an entrepreneur for $426 million. It's likely the new owner will be looking to rapidly pay off the hefty purchase price.
The obvious quick-fire strategy would be to extend the familiar brand name into other related product categories. Turning it simply into a recognizable "badge" that can be stuck on some generic private label electronics products. The new the owner runs the Petters Group, a mixed bag of business that includes the manufacture of private label electronics for big box retail. Petters have been involved in the manufacture of Polaroid Electronics products, since mid-2004.
Having a recognizable name is obviously an asset with a value, but one would think that to be somewhat relevant, the brand would need some expertise or connection with the product, its name is attached to. Today, especially in the world of consumer electronics, a brand name with high awareness, counts more than relevance.
It seems a shame, that the inventor of a radical form of consumer imaging, should be asset stripped to the point that the only value left, is a name to be stuck on some piece of low cost electronics. It's branding on the cheap and the new owners realize that a couple buying a third TV set for their guest bedroom are more likely on impulse to choose Polaroid over "Goldenstarbird". This strategy is clear from the copy on the website.
"Capitalizing on Polaroid's 70-year brand history of trust, quality, and innovative products, Petters Consumer Brands is confident Polaroid consumers will embrace home entertainment components that are easy to use and install, and enjoyable for their entire family. And as Polaroid customers expect, all Petters Consumer Brands licensed merchandise is competitively priced and engineered with the same high quality for which the Polaroid brand is known."
Names are increasingly needed in consumer electronics. As low cost producers dominate category after category, they only thing missing is a recognizable name. Some companies like BenQ, might choose to develop their own brand over-time, others might license; recently Yahoo, licensed it's name for televisions.
For companies with remote connections to the world of consumer electronics, it might be wise to start calling your lawyers and consultants to discover if there's an available revenue stream in the sale of your naming rights.
At Influx, we are already dreaming of Energizer self-powered radios, Duracell MP3 players and Kodak televisions.
Looking for further proof of the value of a good name? Especially when you don't have to pay for it. Ted Fishman's article in the New York Times Magazine (login required) makes for a fascinating read.
Share / Bookmark:
It appears you don't have Flash installed.