In this episode, Rory points out why ambiguity in terms like brand and IP are problematic. The word brand is used to mean anything people want. It's even been used to defend advertising, that doesn't work, The episodes touched on many interesting points including:

• The misunderstanding of the value of brands
• The reasons why brands might change their name and logo 
• Situational examples when brand names can't be protected
• Chesterton's Fence and how it relates to Tropicana's redesign
• The value in simple fame that defies logic explained by behavioural science
• The importance of understanding what the law means by IP in terms of branding
• How plagiarism is  policed through professional shaming in the advertising industry

LinkedIn: Rory Sutherland
Twitter: @rorysutherland
Book: Transport for Humans 
www.ogilvy.com

Valuable Resources:

Brand Tuned Scorecard
Brand Tuned Accreditation
IP Strategy Is Part of Brand Strategy Blog

Shireen Smith: So, Rory, welcome to the podcast. I'm delighted to be speaking with you today. When you endorsed my book, you said something about intellectual property being the most misused and overused term in the marketing lexicon. I'd love it. If you could elaborate on that a bit more, please.

Rory Sutherland: I don't think I suppose the point would be is that it's very poorly understood. And I think there are a lot of terms in the marketing lexicon, which are problematic, simply because they're so ambiguous. I mean, the word brand, unfortunately, which encompasses a very, very important concept is a little like the blank tile in Scrabble, you know, you can use it to mean anything you want oft, okay. And, you know, sometimes, you know, it's used to defend advertising, that doesn't work. You know, let's call this, there's a famous story where I think Jeremy Bill Maher says they had a very, very unsuccessful direct response campaign. And they said, well, why don't we get rid of the coupon and call it a brand ad? That's a terrible use of a phrase. Yeah. And I did find your book very interesting because I don't think marketers look at branding through the lens of intellectual property very much. And that's partly because of this kind of chameleon property that the word has, that you can, you can use it to mean anything you like. And so, reading a book about this, written by someone with a legal background was hugely valuable, because everybody, everybody has blind spots. I mean, there's this great argument, I think, for cognitive diversity, which is, you know, people tend to argue for cognitive diversity on the grounds that, you know, you get slightly different points of view. And, in fact, the real payoff is not that it's the fact that if you have a homogeneous group in the room, they will be entirely blind to certain points of view. And there's a great story that Matthew Syed tells about this, which is, under the Blair government, they had this idea which everybody are very, very enthused about, which is if you committed some minor offense, the police could march you to the nearest cash point and force you to withdraw 50 pounds and pay a fine. And it was not it was based on some intelligent thinking, which is that the speed of punishment actually has an effect on its deterrent effect. But of course, a bunch of middle-class people in the richest 10% of the population completely fail to notice that most of the people who commit such offences either don't have a bank card or if they do, they don't have 50 paths on their account. And so the entire scheme, you know, falls at the level of practicality. Hmm, yeah. I mean, you yourself, what do you notice? Because tell me this, what do you notice is strange about the way that marketers tend to look at intellectual property? Because I'm probably as blind to it as everybody else's?

Shireen Smith: Yeah. Yeah, I think one of the problems is the definition of IP. I think people use it to mean their knowledge and skills, and they read much more into it than actually, it is. So, when you're turning your ideas for a business, into a new business, sort of product or service. If you don't create intellectual property that the law would protect, then you effectively could lose the value of it. So, for example, if you don't make sure you're going to have copywriting software that's written for you by having the right agreement in advance, then the software will belong to the developers and they're the ones who can exploit it. And you just have something you can use in your own business. So, people, might say it's my IP, you know, because and they're converting it into software. But if they don't attend to this slight detail they could find, but it's not their IP, so to speak. So, I think it's important to understand what the law means by IP. When you know, when you're turning anything into a brand, especially

Rory Sutherland: What sort of egregious mistakes do you see made?

Shireen Smith: Well, a common problem is to assume that IP is something you deal with to protect what you've already created. But in fact, you know, it brands protection issues, determine what you should create, because if you can't protect what it is that's created, or if it's going to be quite costly, then it's not going to really suit the needs of that particular business. So, for example, colour is often really emphasized so much in branding, people get one sort of logo, stylized wordmark. And then all the emphasis is placed on colour to distinguish that brand, but you can't protect colour very easily even, you know, large household name brands that might have been using colour for years, may not be able to earn a colour.

Rory Sutherland: So, Tiffany presumably has tried, there must be a few entities that tried.

Shireen Smith: And yes, there's a number of brands that have secured trademarks in colours. But it's rare. So, for normal businesses to rely on colour is you know, it's an extra rather than one of the core elements because you want to create a distinctive brand that you can own. So, you want all the elements like the names, the taglines, slogans, and mascots. You want to own those, and therefore need to be thinking about what is protectable under the law when you're actually creating.

Rory Sutherland: And it's interesting, of course, the classic mistake, which I think is made less frequently today, was naming things after numbers, which aren't effectively protectable for fairly obvious reasons. Douglas Adams car down 42. But that was one interesting issue, wasn't it I think, which is that a lot of people loved for the purposes of sense-making, essentially to, you know, to use numbers as a branding device. And that's a much weaker position than words, is that fair?

Shireen Smith: I'm not too familiar with that. But I don't see why you shouldn't be able to protect a number if that's what you want. You know, 118, for example, is protectable. But the problem is usually that people go for generic names because they want something meaningful. So, you know, they want what the brand is doing the product services to be described, in the names they choose. And that is a real problem, because you can't own a generic and then you know, if like Oatley, you go for a slightly descriptive name that is trademark lockable, that's fine, as long as it would suit the needs of the brand. So maybe for a worldwide brand, it's less suitable. So, it's always about thinking about why am I creating this brand, whereas it can be used, that determines what you should create? I mean, does Ogilvy create brands?

Rory Sutherland: I mean, WPP would certainly have quite a few. Branding itself misses who would look at this. And in fairness, those people in the creation tend to be fairly well versed in this with things like end lines, for example, and advertising phrases. It's a different question and obviously, you know, you know, they're, you know, people will perform a Google search. I'm not suggesting were completely haphazard here. But it is, it is an area, which I think is interesting. I know. that was an interesting case, which came about when Ronseal wanted to effectively own the line. It does exactly what it says on the tin. And I think the first lawyer they spoke to said don’t be ridiculous. It's a phrase in common use, not realizing that the phrase originated with the advertising. It's strange that because it does exactly what it says on the tin, basically entered common parlance within about a year or two of the advertising breaking.

Shireen Smith:  That's why you need to protect it. Very quickly, because once it does enter the language, then it's much more difficult.

Rory Sutherland: Got it. So, it's very, very hard to make the case that something that now is in common use. I mean, it's interesting to look at Shakespeare, you know, so many English phrases seem to a rich, if only he'd had a better liar. But that’s interesting thing where you create a phrase. The other one is to what extent things are ideas of protectable is something which I think marketing people are very, very ignorant off. And I find it personally slightly horrifying that Amazon can obtain legal protection over the one clicks approach.

Shireen Smith: Well, they got a patent for that. But then it was invalidated. It was invalidated. Interesting, it was invalidated. And there is a lot of controversy around, you know, giving technology patents, you know, for something that somebody happens to be the first to be able to develop, it doesn't seem.

Rory Sutherland:  You end up with patent trolls and people who are effectively exploiting the system. That's right. And it seems to me a fairly significant barrier to innovation. Unless someone creates a far better mechanism, I think, for protecting these things. The extent to which it can be an obstacle to innovation is slightly terrifying. I think there was one strange legal position where if you use an if I'm right, there's certain technology involved in mobile phones where the royalty payable is proportionate to the value of the device, which means that it was very, very difficult to put mobile phone chips into cars because technically, the royalty you paid will be a proportion of the purchase price of the car, which will be kind of insane. I think that must have ended now. But that was apparently a barrier for quite some time.

Shireen Smith: One of the problems I've seen is that IP isn't really included as part of the training of marketers and brand managers, designers, and I'm not sure why that is, you know, because it's so intertwined with what you're creating when you create a brand or when you choose names, to understand how they can be protected, or what you should create that, you know, I wonder why it's not included in training courses.

Rory Sutherland: One very strange thing about the advertising industry, which you should know is that plagiarism is really policed through professional shaming, rather than through any legal mechanism. Right. So, it's, it would be very, it's a very interesting argument, which is that it is completely unacceptable to steal an advertisement from, you know, if the advertisements fundamentally been done before, you know, you can have a very high degree of similarity in terms of the concept. So, you could say that, for example, Hamlet, and I bet he drinks Carling, Black Label, okay? are very, very similar thoughts at root. But if you actually steal phraseology from another ad, it's considered absolutely heinous and it's the kiss of death within the creative community. Now, it does raise an interesting question if there's a great award-winning campaign for a small fish and chip shop, where it contributes, you know, a few 1000 pounds to their revenue. And that same campaign would be fantastic for McDonald's, which would, you know, make them potentially 10s of millions of pounds, it becomes impossible to reuse the small ad in the larger context, which an economist would say was horrific. Because every ad an idea should gravitate to the place where it can be most valuable. Can you know to an economic mindset, but most of originality within advertising itself, is self-policed. Which is, first of all, you wouldn't win an award for it, and you would be consumed, it has considerable opprobrium directed at you if you sought to lay credit for an ad which someone else had done previously.

Shireen Smith: Yes, well, that might work sort of the moral dimension might work in a very small community, but on a global basis, where it's whoever manages to trademark something, a term or concept, who owns it, it's a very dangerous way to go about, I mean, I've seen countless instances of people losing something simply because they hadn't applied to register their trademark. So, for example, a design student who developed a product that became very successful in terms of the press were all talking about it, and he intended to set up a business using that name. And a few months later, he found that a competitor or trademarked that term for similar products, and there was nothing he could do about it because he hadn't used it in business, you know, just because he managed to get lots of PR, for the word, the name wasn't enough for him to have legal remedies to be able to regain the length. So, it's really important to protect things from you know, when you create something valuable to protect. So, which is why I think it's quite important for brand creation, people to be mindful of what you can protect, and then to actually do you know, protect it.

Rory Sutherland: And I think at the genesis of brands, the people probably get this right. I think there's a misunderstanding of the, you know, sometimes the value of brands, which is that the value, a distinctive brand identity confers on its owner, it's very difficult to quantify.

Shireen Smith: Yes, very.

Rory Sutherland: And arguably, you only really know what your brand is worth when you sell it. That's the only real way in which you could get any appreciation of the value. But it's complicated because it delivers benefits in some areas, which are quantifiable, and some areas which aren't? Okay. Yeah, there are cases where you can see what the value of a brand is, when you sell, for example, the Volkswagen Sharan, which was identical, I think, to the Ford Focus, except for the branding. And you can see the effect that, but it doesn't do full justice by any means to understanding what price premium it allows you to command. It's also worth remembering the brand, essentially, is permission to innovate, in that someone will accept an innovative new product from an established brand with much, much more readiness than they will, from someone they've never heard of. So, it carries a future value in terms of your ability, your company's ability to flex and pivot.

Shireen Smith: Yeah.

Rory Sutherland: Which I don't think is but it's not. The reason it's not looked at much is because it's not easy to quantify. And I think we have this very interesting, very interesting talk. I was talking about this just the other day, that there's a talk on YouTube, between Mark Carney former governor of the Bank of England and Damien Hirst, and unusual you're, it's very easy to Google because they don't often appear on the same place. But one of the things that Damien Hirst remarked on to Mark Carney was that when you produce a painting, it just that the raw materials cost you a few $100 It's nothing, you know, better word better Canvas better paint, okay. People will pay millions for it. But David has said the problem arises when I make a diamond skull, because suddenly people wanted it. Yeah, I get that you want $2 million for the skull. But how much did the platinum cost? How much do the diamonds cost? And when you have anything like a brand that's a mixture of quantifiable and unquantifiable value, we tend to become fixated on what we can quantify. Yeah, and as a result, we tend to, you know, grossly undervalued, because if all you're fixating on as the resale value of the diamonds and the effectively the scrap value of the piece, you're not really understanding the value it conveys. And so, I think there's something really interesting in that field. I mean, if you look at brands like Marmite, the extent to which they've used you know, a combination of you either love it or you hated the fact that the brand is, you know, is particularly polarizing. There's also the interesting thing with Marmite which I think is common with also with Dr Pepper which is it's very difficult to sell a store knockoff of it because you don't know what you'd call it. Okay? You can call it yeast extract, but come on, you know, okay, right? No one's ever written a shopping list where they say don't forget to buy some yeast extract, or don't, don't forget to buy a very strange tasting drink, which isn't really a cola. And it's not really you know, what is Dr Pepper for God's sake, it's impossible to explain. And so, but the value of that Marmite and that brand, and the visual identity and so forth, actually contains in terms of the future value of potential innovation, along with the current value that it delivers, is something you'll never be able to quantify fully, you know, some of those ideas will fail, some of them will succeed. But without the brand, they're by definition, impossible.

Shireen Smith: Yes. And actually, all you have really is these distinctive assets. So, I name, the visual identity, the slogan, you know, that people try to do much more when they create brands, at least at the small business level, there's a lot of focus on differentiation, which might be useful to get the business off the ground. But ultimately, in the long run, it's going to be those distinctive assets that are going to last. And yeah, you know, people keep rebranding keep changing those identifiers, or what do you think would be good reasons to change things like the brand name and logo?

Rory Sutherland: Almost, most of the decisions to reinvent things not all by any means. But many of these decisions are not really conditioned by good reasons, because it's a failure to understand the extent to which familiarity confers business advantage. Yeah. And also, I think marketers tend to miss frame how marketing works. Now, when I say misread, I'm not saying they're totally wrong about it, but they tend to emphasize the idea that people buy things because they're good, rather than the fact that people buy things, because they're sure they're not bad. Yeah. And the fact that brands provide reassurance not only, not only comparative advantage, in other words, when I buy a Samsung television, it's much less likely to be terrible than a television, it might be more expensive for a given screen area. But it's much less likely to be terrible than a television made by someone I've never heard of. I'm much less likely to have a disastrous experience or, you know, no ability to get a refund or whatever. The fact that that's what's going on, I think he's misunderstood. And so, the simple value of brand familiarity and distinctiveness as opposed to perfectionism, I think I think gets misattributed quite badly. And so, there are cases where I can, you know, you can understand why people might want to create a new brand, rather than extending on an existing brand. There are cases where people might want to significantly reinvent a brand. But the reasons for it often don't take account of why the brands working in the first place. The most famous thing is the Tropicana charging redesign, which you'll know all about, you know, there was so much going on there that they were unaware of that when they redesigned, you know, I mean, if you think about it, an orange with a straw stuck into it is almost a work of genius. So why on earth do you wish to get rid of that? They didn't understand, for example, the semiotics where fresh orange juice tended to show oranges, whereas long life orange juice tended to show orange liquid. And so, they broke a fundamental semiotic rule. And so, I think there's huge scope for Chesterton's fences here. The Chesterton's fence is something that exists for reasons we can't explain, but we should be cautious of getting rid of it until we know the reason why it existed in the first place. And I think I think, you know, Mark Ritson generally says, look, the last thing you want to do is create extra new brands which effectively dilute your brand investment and dilute your attention as well, by the way. So, in the case of completely reinventing things, there's scope for a refresh I mean, the Amazon homepage looks completely different parrot did when Amazon first started but you never noticed the difference from one day to another very much. Okay. It's its general incremental change. The same would apply to everything from you know, the shell logo, etc. Now, there are cases BP his case would be an interesting point where you I think, was Landor who did it. You want to be thought of as an energy company, not as an oil company? and something like that can signify the change.

Shireen Smith: Sure, yeah.

Rory Sutherland: But, you know, there are cases where you want to signal, you know, change or disruption. It might make sense in those cases. But it's something that I think should be performed with caution. dangerously. I think sometimes it happens because the new marketing director, who perhaps only expects to be in place for a certain length of time, wants to make a name for themselves. You know, there are what we once engaged in a brief, which was genuinely the most miserable express my professional life, which was a client who wants to get rid of the fourth emergency service for the AA. Oh, every creative person basically regarded this decision as borderline insane. The reasons given for it weren't to be honest, very strong, other than not invented here. And it was absolutely, you know, it was an absolutely dismal experience because it involved a whole extensive pitch doing something that nobody really believed in. And so those properties are extraordinarily interesting in the sense that they work in multiple different ways, some of which are quantifiable, some of which aren't. And if you make the Damien Hirst mistake of obsessing on what you can measure not on what's important, you commit a fundamental act of undervaluation.

Shireen Smith: Yeah, so if you want to signal a change, you could do it without altering the identifiers. So, you don't need to change the name. There hasn't been a rightness type issue, but you just want to signal a new direction to the brand. Wouldn't you do that in?

Rory Sutherland: Even in the case of rappers I wouldn't be 100% sure, you know, if they own other brands, which are already well established, you want to rebrand rap, rebrand rappers as another familiar jewelry chain. That might make sense. Okay. I'll give you a lovely statistic, which is people in Colombia quite forgivable, okay, and quite understandably, driven practically insane by the serious narcotics, okay? Because it positions, you know, Colombians effectively, you know, you know, a home to gangsterism and drug trading. But tourist visits to Colombia went up, after that Narcos aired. So there is a value in simple fame, which defies logic that is explained by behavioral science, which is the mere availability of fact that the human brain processes familiar things very differently, and with much, much less anxiety than it processes the unfamiliar things.

Shireen Smith: Yeah.

Rory Sutherland: Well, decision science is an area that maybe branding professionals should all be trained in as well. So, I mean, what you were heading the advertising? What was it called.

Rory Sutherland:  Behavioral science practice I created it Ogilvy about 10 years ago.

Shireen Smith: But the practitioners in advertising? What would it take for them to incorporate something like IP decision science into their brand management syllabuses? I don't know.

Rory Sutherland: A very simple, a very simple heuristic change would be whenever you pitch, or particularly when you pitch but also, when you present new work during the existing client, there should be a single PowerPoint slide, which is headed something like legal implications, that if you simply got people to think this way, it only needs a single slide. But the very fact that that slide needs to be filled in will force people to pay attention to something which is not necessarily you don't want your creative team agonizing about this, necessarily, because, you know at some level, but at the same time, the fact that quite often the creative process will ignore these implications completely, is potential opportunity risk. Yeah. And in some cases, enormous risk where you risk falling foul of other players. You know, I mean, you know, and so, the fact that you by the way, it will signal very good things about your agency that you have thought about this.

Shireen Smith: Okay. I mean, I wonder why Tesco for example, they had an agency, develop the club card name for them. Now, I don't know how it happens. But that's a name that they couldn't protect.

Rory Sutherland: Sorry, what was the name their

Shireen Smith: Clubcard so Tesco tried. Had an agency developed the word club called for their loyalty scheme, and the name was developed and chosen but it's not been able to trademark it. They've tried hard They've appealed and failed to trademark it.

Rory Sutherland: So, Tesco Clubcard obviously is protectable, which is the official name, but they miss the fact that most people talk about Clubcard. You know, most people, you know, most people will use the sub brand rather than the brand.

Shireen Smith: Well, actually, it's more like you were saying people won't put yeast extract, they, if they can't use the brand name, then they've got a problem. So, Tesco when it developed the loyalty card scheme, PubCon, it had something unique that it could have stopped others emulating. So, if it could have protected club, Clubcard if it had chosen a better name,

Rory Sutherland: It's possible it strikes me It strikes me as possible that if you think about it, lots of buyers’ clubs, somewhere, someone somewhere in the world is going to have put the word club and card together previously, I would have thought, yeah, you know, you have shorter times you have Christmas clubs, you have everything else. Yeah, but that you do think if they'd acted sooner, they could have protected it.

Shireen Smith: No, I think they should have chosen a better name. So, this is one of the examples were thinking about IP during the brand creation process helps you to get something that you can uniquely own. And if you miss the IP dimension, and often people don't work with lawyers. And that's another question I have for you know, why not? And why not train people in IP?

Rory Sutherland: The process of coming up with something new and different and fresh. The whole creative process is very fragile, you know. Yeah. And actually, really good ideas can be killed if you expose them to too much negativity too early. Yeah, I have heard that. And so, if you like copywriters, and creative people, and to some extent, everybody in the advertising industry will have a visceral fear of liars, because they don't see liars as a means to making their work better. They see it as some people who come in and destroy the headline or destroy the tambour of the copy, or the tone of the copy by inserting, you know, words fairly indiscriminately into, you know, to cover your ass for some reason. And one of the things I learned to do, which I think distinguishes a good reasonably good copywriter from a bad one is I always try and reach an accommodation. Okay, look, this is what I'm trying to do. This is what you're trying to say, Okay, let's see if we can reach an accommodation. There are a few cases, I'll tell you two cases where lawyers have accidentally improved creative work. So, when I think it was, and I was trying to remember the agency, it might have been KHBB, came up with a line for Carlsberg, the best lager in the world. The lawyer said you can't say that. But they said you can say probably the best lager in the world. Now, interestingly, that made the campaign much better lager live, because they've had as much fun with the word probably, as they've had with the best lager in the world, it made it better, actually. And the other interesting one is a famous one for sale cut, where they weren't the Advertising Standards Authority or similar wouldn't allow them showing the shower scene in psycho with a purple curtain. But they said if you remove the knife, and you just showed a shower and a curtain, the ad would be perfectly acceptable. Now the ad is actually better without the knife because it leaves the consumer to make the connection. It makes the thing implicit rather than explicit, which in many ways makes it a bit more engaging advertisement. So, there are a few cases by the way, where this kind of thing has actually made things better. And constraints can sometimes make things better. And I was thought, okay, if you work with a lawyer, as a copywriter, and you say this is what I'm trying to do, this is what I'm trying to convey, which is one thing, and this is what you need to say, as a lawyer to cover yourself. Let's see if we can find it in the Venn diagram where those two things overlap.

Shireen Smith: Yeah, so it needs a different type of lawyer

Rory Sutherland: I think so. Yeah. The assumption is that basically, when you get in touch with a liar, they'll just give you a lot of reasons why you can't do things.

Shireen Smith: Yeah. Yeah. And that's something Yeah. So

Rory Sutherland:  Since to be honest, it requires, you know, a degree of fantasy, you know, the, you know, the creation of something new to requires, to some extent, I suppose, an element of slightly pathological optimism. Hmm. Yeah. It you know, people desperately don't want to expose themselves to negativity, at certain phases of the process and not unreasonably. You're right in terms of a lawyer who comes in and says, actually, you can do you could do a bit more here because you could potentially trademark this colour, or you could get to own this. Yeah. Okay. That would be a great conversation because now we've got another reason to sell the campaign.

Shireen Smith:  Yes. Oh, would you think about training designers and marketers more in branding, the IP aspects of branding so that they

Rory Sutherland:  And actually, it could be relatively small and efficient training for the simple reason that you don't need to know how to do it. You just need to know that it's something that needs to be done.

Shireen Smith: Yeah, you need to have some understanding of what it is you should be trying to avoid or to achieve.

Rory Sutherland: I think, you know, and it's, it's an interesting question, of course, because it also in pitching, it raises an interesting question, are you pitching to show the work you're going to do? Or are you pitching to show what kind of work you can do? So, some pitches are kind of a performance activity? Yeah. You know, where it's, it's what you might call, it's similar to a rehearsal or a casting, it's effectively a casting exercise. And some of them are actually looking for a way forward. Yeah. But I'll put you in touch of doubted. I mean, you know, I don't know enough, having worked most of our life in advertising, it'd be interesting to me to talk to Cody Portabel, our colleagues, who are very much involved in the field of design and identity. Now, I'm sure they know, they know to do this. But the extent that it is possible to do it in a much more positive, opportunistic way, is of interest to everybody because I think like, I think creative people frame lawyers as the people who shit on your work.

Shireen Smith: Maybe lawyers need to rebrand?

Rory Sutherland: Yeah, no, no, no, absolutely. I think there is. I think there is an opportunity here to say, actually, this is a significant advantage in pitching if you can say, we've, you know, we've actually checked with a lawyer and these things can be protected fully.

Shireen Smith: Yes, and also, agencies would be able to promote themselves better. I think, if they could take into account the commercial dimension,

Rory Sutherland: Will it take it also takes you into a conversation along the lines of intellectual property and its value, which is a helpful conversation when it comes to fee negotiation?

Shireen Smith: Yes, yeah, for sure. So that's been really useful discussing this with you, or thank you so much.

Rory Sutherland: Well, keep up, keep up the good work. And I will try and see that your book is out. I'll try and treat your book because I think this is an area which is perhaps best described as an area of willful blindness.

Shireen Smith: Yeah. Somebody else said that.

Rory Sutherland: Yeah, let's just pretend that this doesn't apply. And we'll solve the problem in the absence of this consideration. Sometimes that's a good creative approach because if you become too bogged down with constraints, you know, too early on, you'll never get anywhere, but equally, I can see why. Any other examples other than Clubcard where you know, they've been extraordinary loss of intellectual property.

Shireen Smith: Oh, I've got lots of examples that I've used, I scrabble - Scrabulous. Sometimes it happens that people use a similar name to an existing brand without realizing that that's going to be a problem. So Scrabulous, they had a sort of Scrabble, like game on Facebook with millions of users. And then they were taken down by Scrabble. And that paved the way for Zynga to enter the market with words. So, they lost that sort of first mover advantage and the traction they'd gone by having to rebrand it wasn't just that they had to rebrand. So, people can lose out quite a lot if they don't pay attention to you know, IP.

Rory Sutherland: Fantastic case. Oh, thank you ever so much. That's all right.

Shireen Smith: Great. Well, it's been really good talking to you.

Rory Sutherland: Absolute pleasure. Thank you very much need advice.