In today’s Journal there is a story about a Teesside company that launched an online search engine called iBod and then wondered why they heard from the legal team at Apple Corp. After six months of begging to disagree with the lawyers of the world’s richest company, the small business has changed its name “to avoid legal fees”.
Image via Wikipedia
This article is not about the rights and wrongs of Apple picking on the little guy, but about the importance of common sense and getting it right first time. The story in the Journal stood out because I could have told them from the second the iBod name was first mentioned that it was totally unworkable. It’s not only about the fact that Apple would inevitably issue a cease and desist letter, it’s also about brand recognition and the fact that the brand is far too similar to one that is already deeply established in the public psyche.
I’m willing to bet that, in the six months it took them to give up the battle, the owners of iBod have spent quite a bit of money on legal fees and other advice, while knowing deep down that this was a battle they could not win. It’s not even about the rights and wrongs of the argument as, with $70 billion in the bank, Apple could simply keep pursuing them until their fledgling enterprise ran out of cash.
At some point, the owners of iBod must have had a brainstorm or talked to a designer about their new brand. If indeed they paid a brand development consultancy to come up with this name, they should be asking for their money back. I think they could have avoided a lot of pain and freed up a great deal of time to concentrate on building their business, simply by realising from the beginning that this name was a millstone around their necks.
Every day, companies pay for advice on everything from recruitment to intellectual property, PR and marketing – in which I declare an interest – in the hope that they will receive good value for money and a return on their investment. It’s important to remember, however, that some things come down to common sense. If something is so obvious that it’s staring you in the face, the iBod v iPod disagreement being a prime example, move on and spend your money or energy elsewhere. Save your cash for where it’s really needed and you’ll do better in the long term.
When Public Sector Intervention Goes Too Far, Pragmatism Goes Out of the Window
January 12th, 2011Pragmatism is becoming the watchword for the regional economy in the North East. We need to take stock of where we’re at and consider all external factors before we make business decisions, especially if they regard expansion, development or investment.
The word ‘pragmatism’ came into my head this morning when I read an article in the Journal about the closure of Sunderland ARC (http://tinyurl.com/4szusz2), the urban regeneration body for Wearside. ARC has spent £75 million acquiring land over the past few years, but it is best known for its long-running battle against Tesco for control over the future development of the former Vaux Breweries site.
Tesco had acquired the land from Whitbread in 2002, intending to redevelop the key city centre site as a new business and retail zone, incorporating a Tesco Extra superstore and some residential units. One North East and later Sunderland ARC, were fundamentally opposed to this and fought every proposal put forward by Tesco for development of the10.4 hectare plot.
Finally Tesco reached a compromise and agreed to move to the run-down Sunderland Retail Park on the other side of the Wear, a site which is arguably better suited to the needs of a modern supermarket and which will undoubtedly deliver benefits to the local area. The only problem is that the Vaux site, now owned by One North East, remains vacant, with only the promise that it will be developed “within the next few years” offered by the ARC’s outgoing chief executive.
When Sunderland ARC commenced its fight against Tesco, it was operating in the benign environment of a booming property market and seemingly limitless public sector backing. By the time it won the battle, the alternatives to Tesco were severely limited, if not non-existent. In the heat of the battle to beat the supermarket giant, pragmatism went out of the window.
The size of its business gives Tesco huge spending power, which is leveraged through its Spenhill development arm, to facilitate major development programmes, incorporating far more than just a supermarket. We are currently seeing this in Gateshead, where Tesco is leading the redevelopment of the entire town centre, working in close partnership with the local council without placing a burden on the public purse. The prospective profit from the supermarket, which will account for around one third of the overall development, makes this possible.
Instead of working with one company that was ready and willing to put up the money here and now, Sunderland is left with an empty site that may be developed “in the next few years”. Meanwhile, the taxpayer is down £75 million that could have been well used elsewhere in the current financial environment.
I am a supporter of regional development agencies and I feel they have done much good work, which they should have been allowed to continue in a slimmed down form, but this type of battle seems nonsensical, especially given the legacy that Sunderland ARC will leave behind. To claim that it leaves the city with a brighter future seems wide of the mark to me, as demonstrated by the large scar that will continue to blight the city centre for many years to come.
Tags: ARC, One North East. pragmatism, Point Pleasant, Sunderland, Tesco, Vaux
Posted in Opinion, Rob Lawson - Commentary | No Comments »