Researchers from Western University, Stockton University, and the University of Massachusetts Amherst co-authored an article in the Journal of Marketing, exploring whether firms benefit from incorporating popular nicknames into their branding strategies.
Zhe Zhang, Ning Ye, and Matthew Thomson have written the paper, “BMW is Powerful, Beemer is Not: Nickname Branding Impairs Brand Performance,” which will soon be published. It delves into the phenomenon of brand nicknames that have seamlessly woven themselves into everyday language—such as BMW becoming “Beemer,” Bloomingdale’s shortened to “Bloomie’s,” Rolex to “Rollie,” Walmart to “WallyWorld,” and Starbucks to “Starbies.”
Despite their widespread use and consumer affection, the study suggests that officially adopting these nicknames in marketing efforts might harm a brand’s strength. For instance, in 2021, Bloomingdale’s embraced the moniker “Bloomie’s” for a new store in Fairfax, Virginia; Target revived its “Fall for Tarzhay All Over Again” campaign in 2018; and the Howard Johnson hotels have been marketed under the slogan “Go Happy. Go HoJo.”
The research highlights that brand nicknames are typically consumer-generated, and by adopting them, brands might inadvertently signal that they are ceding control to their customers, thereby diminishing their authority and power. Zhang notes that embracing a consumer-generated nickname can be seen as acknowledging that consumers hold sway over the brand’s identity, potentially undermining the brand’s perceived strength.
The study differentiates between nicknames used by customers and those used by marketers. Brands often monitor consumer language closely, especially on social media, aiming to gain insights rather than merely mimicking consumer expressions. While nicknames can endear a brand to consumers when used organically by them, marketer adoption of these nicknames can make the brand appear weaker, as it might seem to infringe on what could be considered consumers’ “intellectual property.”
The authors argue that marketers must distinguish between consumer-driven nickname usage, which does not imply submission to consumer influence, and marketer-driven usage, which might. Prior studies have suggested that nicknames used by consumers can have positive effects, but these benefits do not translate when the nicknames are used in marketing. Thomson emphasizes that while marketers should not discourage nickname usage within the consumer community, they should be cautious about adopting them for marketing purposes.
The context in which nicknames are used also matters significantly. For example, a small, family-owned restaurant in a local community might benefit from adopting a well-loved local nickname when raising funds for community projects, as this can strengthen regional ties and support. Here, the nickname enhances the communal identity and engagement rather than diluting the brand’s power.
Moreover, before deciding to adopt a nickname, marketers must thoughtfully consider their brand’s archetype (competent versus warm) and the nature of their messaging (transactional versus communal). The study points out that meaningful brand name changes—like Apple Computer’s shortening to Apple, IHOP’s temporary rebrand to IHOb, and Dunkin’ Donuts’ shift to Dunkin’—reflect strategic repositioning that communicates a new brand identity clearly to consumers, unlike superficial nickname adoptions.
Thomson remarks that without significant alterations to a brand’s core identity, nickname branding may seem like a mere superficial attempt to win consumer favour. This can backfire, as seen in Radioshack’s rebranding as “The Shack,” which was perceived as a desperate bid for relevance and is believed to have accelerated its decline.
More information: Zhe Zhang et al, BMW Is Powerful, Beemer Is Not: Nickname Branding Impairs Brand Performance, Journal of Marketing. DOI: 10.1177/00222429241266586
Journal information: Journal of Marketing Provided by American Marketing Association