Blog

Names are a fascinating window into popular culture and our deeper motivations. One manifestation of this is the frequent client request for Landor to create product family names with a cool prefix, “you know, something like iPod.” What they really mean is “don’t bother looking for anything else, just help us apply the i-convention to everything we sell.”

Granted, this approach perfectly complemented Apple’s hugely successful personal computers, media players, and related services, which have been the envy of its competitors. But I would suggest it reached a sensible limit within their product suite. Why then does it remain so desirable across several other industries? I believe it is because it so perfectly expresses human nature. No matter what era we were born in, it seems we are all part of the iGeneration—it truly is all about us. This seems obvious, but it is the only explanation I can see for the appeal of describing the things we surround ourselves with in this way.

A friend of mine articulates this nicely when he says, with ironic false humility, “it’s not always about me—sometimes it’s about my stuff.” And the genius of “i” is that it can be applied so naturally to just about anything. The result is that enterprising people have brought us iStuff in almost every category, without a thought for the real meaning of the names that result.

It is clear that one can’t just dabble in the iCult without it becoming all-consuming. The iGeneration’s identity is shaped by plugging iDevices into iDocks, wrapping them in an iSkin, taking in iContent downloaded from iSites customized to their iLike preferences, all the while playing with apps on their iPhones, and iBlogging or iTweeting about idle pursuits. In the words of the Mac pitchman “it’s all part of iLife,” which is an apt description for much of the empty activity it describes.

The risks are obvious for marketers, even for Apple. First, conventions are just that—by becoming conventional, they lose their coolness. Second, "i" could become shorthand for indulgent and inconsequential, putting a badge on a range of trivial objects and activities. Finally, it is a tempting way for third party marketers to dress up inferior products with undeserved appeal, undermining the standards set by Apple’s exacting quality. Even sophisticated brand builders like BMW are guilty of trying to give iCrap an iGlow—iDrive, anyone?

An aside for those engaged in i-naming: This is very effective for connoting ownership or individual choice, but care needs to be taken when describing highly personal character traits. It is easy to sound self aggrandizing (iRock), or demeaning (how about the iSuck vacuum cleaner?).

Is it likely that the iStar will fade anytime soon? The online world has at least broadened its range of self-centric naming, embracing the possessive form “MySpace,” and the second person “YouTube.” But I fear that occasional attempts at more thoughtful tech naming may be short-lived—Amazon launched the first generation of personal e-readers (which naturally allow their owners to enjoy e-books written in e-ink) as the fresh and interesting “Kindle,” but someone within the iCult will doubtless bring us back to the more literal and banal when they introduce the iRead.

There may be a small glimmer of hope in Verizon’s recent challenge to the walled garden of the iWorld. Their soon-to-be-launched smart phone uses an open technology standard, and its Linux-based Android operating system will likely run on up to two-thirds of handsets globally in the next few years, across a wide range of service providers. The launch campaign takes direct aim at the restrictiveness of the iPhone with the line: “Everything iDon’t, Droid does.” One can only hope that the iGeneration will want more choice than Apple/AT&T, and will enjoy a Truman Show epiphany as they break out of their hermetically sealed iJail.

Once that happens, iStuff will still be useful for I-spy games with our kids on long trips, when we are not using our Thinkpad, Zune, and Blackberry.