Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmduke | Hacker News Reader

I don't get why people are extrapolating corporate stuff out of this. Google needed a candy/desert that began with 'K'. KitKats are delicious, and its pretty hard to think of anything else that fits the pattern (I saw 'key lime pie' thrown around a bunch, but I think that's more of a stretch.)

View on HN

At any other company, the marketers or whoever would have said "well, we obviously can't call it KitKat, 'cause that's trademarked". At Google, they know they're big enough that they might actually get KitKat to agree. But would another big company even have tried? I gotta give them credit, in a weird sort of way, for having the arrogance/self-confidence necessary to do it.

What if KitKat came to them?

If you scroll to the bottom you will find two buttons labelled "Learn more about Kit Kat" and "Learn more about Nexus". If you click on the first button you are taken to a page about the candy bar, not the new OS version. This was clearly a paid product placement.

It's not supposed to be paid by either side:

However, Google told the BBC that it had come up with the idea and that neither side was paying the other.

"This is not a money-changing-hands kind of deal," John Lagerling, director of Android global partnerships, told the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938

Nope, not paid: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938 it's just a bit of fun.

Indeed, it's a totally scammy 'click here for your free Nexus' too. Surprised there wasn't a dozen popups shilling penis pills and investment advice

Where do you see anything scammy on the website?

I see "Learn more about KitKat" and "Learn more about Nexus", both of them lead to exactly what's described.

My post describes exactly what is "scammy" about it, hint: there's other links. Though you could also argue click here to learn about KitKat should give you an Android 5.0 info page since this is android.com

Same happened to me - expected info about the upcoming OS release not the candy on the bottom link.

I think he means the primary link, not the footer links.

Here:

http://www.hersheys.com/kitkat.aspx

(A dreadful site by the way.)

Oh, OK, I am not in US, so that links lead to Nestlé's KitKat site - http://kitkat.com/ - that explains it.

You know why it's probably not a sponsored deal?

It's google award for KitKat for being very active on G+ (it's the first thing i thought about checking after i saw this, and i was right) - also, haven't found such big "communities" except Google's own.

Probably they also were joining G+ from the start and i couldn't find any article about the default smartphone the employees of KitKat receive :) .

PS. I believe KitKat's competitors aren't really happy about this :)

So there is a quid-pro-quo, even if there is no money changing hands.

Err, no. What he described is not a quid-pro-quo, unless they knew that being active on G+ would result in this.

From wikipedia: Quid pro quo ("this for that" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.

Whatever happened behind the scenes, two things are clear:

1. Nestle gave Google permission to use the trademark 2. Google is providing advertising for Kit Kat

So I see only two possibilities:

1. Google asked Nestle for permission to use the trademark for no compensation, Nestle agreed, and Google subsequently decided out of the goodness of their heart to advertise the candy bar in a manner that is unprecedented in the history of the company, or

2. Google asked Nestle for permission to use the trademark, and Nestle agreed in exchange for the aforementioned advertising, i.e. a quid pro quo.

I'll leave it to you to decide which is more plausible. But the Google+ thing is a red herring (except insofar as it might provide some insight into why Google decided to give Nestle such a sweetheart deal).

[UPDATE] Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything at all sinister about this deal. In fact, I think the coordinated campaign is rather clever.

Sorry, I thought you were specifically responding to "It's google award for KitKat for being very active on G+."

Actually, Google might not need permission for the trademark, if the trademark only covers candy.

They are refering to Android - as sweet as chocolate - so that is a referral to KitKat as a company / product.

So they should have some permission / permission about it.

Both have an advantage with one promotion, so it's not really this for that.

Both have the same advantage, but to different people.

Google shows KitKat to other companies (Here is a business active on our community - ecosphere) and KitKat is shown to other people (hey look, we love Android to and we are social - looking at their page, they really are ;-) ).

I'm actually curious about any difference in KitKat's sales because of this action...

I hope that KitKat would show that in the future, as a return to Android enthousiasts.

We are all aware of a multitude of things, but it would be nice for a corporation just to share something... (and like it or not, that's the most used action on my Android phone :-P)

> But would another big company even have tried?

Yes. iPhone was a registered trademark of Cisco's, and this was something that Apple was fully aware of[1]. They pulled the same thing a couple of years later with iOS. If anything, it's much more likely that the KitKat name was done with Nestle's approval, given that they're at least getting recognition/a product tie-in.

[1] http://www.cultofmac.com/143006/how-steve-jobs-steamrolled-c...

Apple Inc. (née Apple Computer) has a pattern of willful trademark infringement. After several litigated disputes with the Beatles' Apple Corps, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business but reneged when they launched iTunes[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

It should be noted, though, that a judge did not find them in breach of the agreement, and ordered Apple Corps to pay Apple Computer.

Furthermore, Apple offered money beforehand, despite believing (and being able to convince a judge) that they didn't have to. So it seems at least in that case they aren't the bad guys.

iPhone is trademarked in Brazil to another company called Gradiente. They even recently launched a new version of their iPhone running Android.

http://www.gradiente.com.br/smartphone-linha-g-gradiente-iph...

Primarily because KitKat is a brand name, and Key Lime Pie is not.

Also Nestle are releasing some kind of limited edition KitKat bar, so it's clearly something beyond the usual naming system.

Personally, I feel like KitKat is a better name. I wish it was as simple as naming the version that and then moving along, but with a trademarked it can't be. If Nestle is going to agree to a deal where no money is exchanged, they need to get something out of it. So it seems like it makes sense for a couple of initial publicity things and then it will be just the same as any other name.

It is being offered by Hershey's and not Nestle. KitKat is made and distributed by The Hershey's company in US and this marketing campaign is only happening in the US.

Got a source for this? According to the BBC, Google talked directly with Nestle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938

It's both. Hershey has the US rights, Nestle has the rest.

When we've had "Ice Cream Sandwich", "Key Lime Pie" isn't much of a stretch... I do like KitKat better, though, for what little that's worth.

Key lime pie, Kugel, Kringle, Kifli, Kulfi, Klondike, etc. But hey, KitKat works.

Shout out to the Racine Kringle Company.

Krapfen!

kettle corn

Kadayif, Kheer

Klondikes!

Too similar to Ice Cream Sandwich

Whoa, buddy. I'm taking that as disrespect! How can you compare a soggy breaded ice cream "sandwich" to a chocolaty coated; ice cream loaded, big and thick; no room for a stick Klondike!? :-D

Apple did this with "Mighty Mouse" and VIACOM.

Apple never had a cross promotional marketing effort with the makers of Mighty Mouse.

That's true, I haven't really read all the details about this KitKat deal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com