What’s in a look? – brands and unintended choices, By Salisu Abubakar

I hope the courts, along with other agencies of government, including the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigerian Copyright Commission, help in hastening up the determination and resolution of this issue, in a way that would be a benefit to all, particularly the consumer.

I need to wade into a concern that has crucially become a public interest issue, particularly having chanced upon a discourse that happened on air in Kano late last week, in which there was a debate over the propriety of some soft drink brand, now widely alleged to be tricking consumers into purchasing its product, which might not have been the original intention of these consumers.

It so happened that I was no less a victim of this situation in the recent past. On a particular day, I had urged a colleague of mine to buy me a bottle of Coca-Cola, which remains one of my guilty pleasures, only to have him bring back a bottle of Pop Cola. On asking him why he made such brand change without seeking my opinion, as I was just a phone call away, he was surprised at my ‘rebuke’ and said that he had equally asked the vendor to give him a bottle of Coke, and had not looked closely to see that he had been given something else instead.

Thinking this as possibly some not-so-funny joke on only me, I had to throw it open among a couple of our other colleagues on why anyone would think that I would want anything other than my accustomed bottle of Coca-Cola. Their responses were quite surprising – if not disturbing – that they were equally initially thrown off, not immediately knowing the difference between the two drinks, until the call for a proper scrutiny of the Pop Cola bottle brought the difference to their attention. For all, the two products looked too similar for comfort.

This then brought it very forcefully to mind the critical issues that the consumer rights advocates had raised in their discourse on Kano radio – is it OK for products to be allowed to leverage off the established images of other well known products? Is it OK for consumers to be tricked into settling for what is apparently not their original choice in patronising particular products? That is: One would already have become a patron before realising the difference from the taste – and that is even only to the discerning! Overall, practices in this fashion seem to me to be very unfair, as they tend to cannibalise the markets of well-established products, specifically when a newer one appears too close an impersonation of the original.

The issue of the very close look between Coca Cola and Pop Cola can easily be considered as the appropriation of a well-known and recognised trademark, in a manner intent on playing a confidence trick on consumers, who are the ultimate victims. Why draw me into patronising a good or product, which is not actually my real choice? This, to me, creates very ethical concerns that need to be examined critically by both governmental and civil society consumer rights agencies.  

If one were to critically examine the visual identities of the two brands involved, between Coca Cola, which has used this iconic look for so many decades, and the newer manifestation in Pop Cola, once readily notices a couple of related identical markers – with one being a slight spin-off of the other. The first thing that hits you is the similarity in the prominent use of the red colour, then white and black, in the bottles of the two drinks, from the cover to the content, and to the label.

Following this is the ribbon device that has been associated with Coca Cola for certainly over a century, which is also present in the newer drink. Also, there is similitude in the fonts used and their stylisation, particularly by Pop Cola, which certainly appears as a very conscious spin-off of that known with Coca Cola for ages.

Without engaging in any form of hair-splitting, although those with intricate knowledge of legalese would possibly attempt to obfuscate issues, there seems to be a continuity of sorts in the deployment of brand markers, creating a difficulty for unsuspecting buyers and consumers. It is a known fact that the identity of Coca-Cola has been consolidated through generations around those markers, at least for no less that a century.

I remember a review done about two decades ago in which the three greatest brands of that past century were determined as – Jesus, Coca Cola and Elvis. As such, it is not difficult to acknowledge the ubiquity of the Coca Cola look and brand, in the massive efforts of multinational marketing campaigns, from the farthest to the nearest corners of our globe, and this is an image that has sunk deep into our collective subconscious as humans. Hence, reaching out for any drink with those brand markers is easily deemed as a reach out for a bottle of Coke!

As such, it will be a futile attempt at hair-splitting for anyone to argue otherwise that the newer look is not a spin-off of the older one. And possibly a very conscious effort to leverage on a known identity and thereby gain the sort of market share that could be deemed as unfair, if not unethical. More so, for me as a consumer, I take strong exceptions to business practices that lead me into unintended choices, as I consider such in the sphere of a personal violation. I like owning my choices – for good and for bad; at least, I can then only have myself to thank or blame.

I hear that a court in Kano is already sitting on this matter of what is clearly a critical dispute over trademarks, between the well-known and classic, and a newer entrant seeking to claw at market share in a manner that raises business, ethical and consumer rights issues. While mixing up drinks that one really desires – between Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola or even Bigi Cola – will definitely be a long stretch, due to their very conscious branding differentiation, one cannot say the same for the close manner of identification that Pop Cola has sought with Coca Cola, which it obviously met in the market.

As such, one would otherwise urge Pop Cola to rather develop its own unique brand markers and identity, to avoid needless controversy, and thereafter run on its own steam. This would equally make choice easier for the consumer in patronising what s/he really intends to, devoid of subsequent displeasure or regret.

I hope the courts, along with other agencies of government, including the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigerian Copyright Commission, help in hastening up the determination and resolution of this issue, in a way that would be a benefit to all, particularly the consumer.

Salisu Abubakar writes from Kano.