RSS

KFC and tech: kindred spirits with bad names

26 Jul

kfc-fillerYou know, fast food and technology aren’t all that unlike. Both depend on continual product innovation to succeed. Both can also see those new products sunk by something as simple as a bad name.

In the technology world, we have greatest misses such as Sony’s impossible-to-pronounce Qriocity streaming service, the slightly dirty sounding iMuffs headphones, and even Casio’s G’zOne ruggedized phone, whose pronunciation puts even Qriocity to shame.

You kind of have to feel bad for the smart people who have put so much time into creating the products themselves, only to have misguided marketing types come up with completely dumb names that assure they’ll never get a shot at succeeding.

It works the same in the food world. Case in point – KFC Canada is selling some new chicken sandwiches, which could be interesting if not for their names: the Filler Subs.

Seriously. As the photo above shows, they’re actually called Fillers. Check ’em out on Facebook.

The name is horribly and ironically bad for two reasons. Either it gives customers the impression that the sandwich is made up of filler materials, or it reminds them that what they’re eating is actually just filler and not at all nutritious. KFC might as well as just add a tagline: “The new Filler: You’ll be hungry again real soon!” Either way: bad, bad, bad.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the board room when this product was named. Even marketers agree that it’s horrible.

Advertisements
 
3 Comments

Posted by on July 26, 2013 in kfc

 

3 responses to “KFC and tech: kindred spirits with bad names

  1. Marc Venot

    July 26, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    KFC’s meat is usually closer to the real taste than most fast food, so it’s surprising that they go for quantity versus quality.

     
  2. Guerilla Doctor

    July 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm

    Hello. This is more in regards to your article on EMR’s but that blog no longer allows comments so I am leaving my comment here instead. I don’t think you are completely aware of the possible implications of full unrestricted release of medical records to the patient. For example, in the clinical notes section, what if the doctor wrote that the patient was suffering from “anxiety” or “depression” and the patient disagreed with the diagnosis? What if the patient demanded that certain comments or diagnoses (no matter whether true or not) be removed from their medical records or they would “sue” the doctor? What if the patient is noted to be “obese” and the patient became insulted by the diagnosis and again demanded that it be removed from his/her chart? Where would it end? Would we have patients analyzing each and every word the doctor wrote and demanding that various diagnoses be “corrected” or “omitted” so that they can satisfied? Can you imagine what kind of chaos that would bring to the medical world? I also have many other issues with your article and socialized healthcare in general, but will not delve into it at this point. Thank you for your attention.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: