Apple’s iPad - Only One Chance to Make a First Impression

When the much anticipated, must-have, Apple gadget debuted this week it was met with a collective “huh?” Part of it was due to the branding. Instead of choosing a unique name that creates and/or redefines the category (like the iPod did), they went with a generic… a “pad,” as in notepad, pad of paper, ink pad, or worse (we’ll get to that later.) The problem with generic brand names is that they tend to minimize the product, and limit it to a predefined category. It’s as if people were saying “Oh, I get it… it’s some sort of electronic pad thing.” Once the brain thinks it has the answer, and knows where something fits, it tends to quit asking questions. And that’s the sad part of the story, because Apple is so great at creating intrigue and suspense. Even the rumored name iSlate would have been more imaginative than a pad.

And then there are the other issues…

• iPad sounds so close to iPod that it’s confusingly similar. Imagine if you were from Boston. The names would be interchangeable.

• Already the name has been subjected to derision by its close affiliation with certain feminine hygiene products. (Do you want the mini or the maxi?)

The initial jokes will wear off, so that’s not a big deal. What is a bigger deal is the lost opportunity cost that results from explaining/defending a name in the first few days of a launch. With a unique, compelling brand name, it may have encouraged potential buyers to inquire more deeply. A good example of this is what Amazon did with the Kindle and Barnes and Noble did with the Nook. Notice neither went with “e-reader” or some generic, functional naming solution. I realize Apple wants/needs to keep the “i” for its branding architecture. But it could have followed it with something more inspiring than a pad. As a company known for its creative brilliance, this is one brand name that fails to shine.