A couple of new ads are out from Flipkart. To me, they reinforce the ease of use (a continuation of the ‘no kidding’ ads) of the brand and take forward the visual identity of ‘kids as adults’.
The ads are enjoyable and you notice a lot of little, cute nuances with every viewing: Mr. Impatient in the lift, him on the ironing board, the school quiz sequence and so on. Spot on casting and acting ups the enjoyability quotient.
What set me thinking was the last line: ‘I don’t shop anymore, I just Flipkart it’. Now here’s something every marketer dreams of: his brand becomes synonymous with the category, a generic use of the name. In the US, all tissues are Kleenex. And people urge you to ‘just Fedex a document’ or ‘take a Xerox’. Of late ‘why don’t you Google it’ has become part of everyday use. However, it is not always good for a brand to be known after the category. If the brand’s trademark is not protected and its usage become’s so common that its unable to differentiate from competition it could become an issue. Aspirin was originally trademarked by Bayer but has become generic. Bikini was invented by French engineer LouisRéard in 1946 but has again become a generic term. ‘Escalator’ too is attributed by some to an invention by Otis.
Flipkart is not in danger of the latter happening, but its interesting to see the approach to ‘own the category’. But does this happen via the user’s own experience? That is, do consumers make or break it? I guess consumers began to use ‘let’s Google it’ or ‘Fedex it’ on their own first. Or do marketers help them along the way by giving them a nudge through marketing stimulus? Why don’t you think about it and comment as you relax in your La-Z-Boy?