No, really: naked licensing.Del Monte licenses its name around the world, including to a British company that produced a bare-chested Daniel Craig frozen smoothie (i.e., a popsicle). Del Monte has been trying to disavow the use of its name, saying the Bondsicle is not really a Del Monte product. And the media coverage seems to be buying this. But if it's not really a Del Monte product, then what on earth does it mean to take a license for the name? I know the rest of the world is more favorable to naked licensing than the US, but I'm not sure that means that Del Monte gets to disavow all knowledge, to borrow from another franchise.
In an internet age, licensing elsewhere that is reported on in the US may affect brand image: another route to self-dilution.
Posts
1 comment:
Or, perhaps, brand owners have been grossly exaggerating the "harm" that comes from uses they don't control?
Post a Comment