Would you consider genericized trademarks to be beneficial or harmful to companies?
For those that don’t know, genericized trademarks are company names which have become synonymous with the products they produce. For example, people refer to any brand of facial tissue as “Kleenex” regardless of if they are produced by Kleenex brand.
I can see both sides of the issue, as it is always good to get brand recognition in any way possible, but also, it might just cause people to use your brand name when referring to another product that is a cheaper alternative.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
3 Answers
absolutely beneficial
what kind of coke do you want?
someone hand me a kleenex
hey google this for me will ya?
I don’t think there is anything better for a company than that.
@patg7590 But what about when people say “Google that for me”, and then pull up a Yahoo web search page?
This is all speculation, by the way:
It depends on the position of the company in the market. If they produce cheap and low end items, then the expansion of the brand name will confer legitimacy; people will tend to assume that of a set of competing products, the one with the most recognized name is the best. That is the whole point of advertisement; a genericized trademark is just an extreme version of brand recognition. However, if they are trying to appear high-end and exclusive, then it is damaging to the company; for instance, if the name Tiffany’s came to refer to jewelry in general, then having an actual Tiffany’s necklace would not carry the same weight. This effect is less powerful than if the company itself begins to ‘cheapen’ its product line, but it is similar; the name does no longer automatically confers class. Also, having their name associated with a number of competing products makes it more difficult for the company to refine or change its image.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
