by Graham White
Category: Experience, Media, Social Media

iSnack 2.0
Owned by Kraft, a new recipe of Vegemite was launched a few months back, but without a name. Instead, the name was entrusted to the Australian public as a competition. This week, the winning entry was unveiled and it has been called – iSnack 2.0. Yep, can you believe it? How can you give food a name like that. What is going on?
As you would expect, the public is equally puzzled. As is the modern debate, the social media channels have been on fire with opinions on both sides. The mainstream media has also reported heavily, both here in Australia and overseas, given the iconic status of the Vegemite brand and probably because it’s such an unusual name.
Personally, I have to agree with the negative camp. It is one of the most unusual product names in living memory.
What do you think?
Or, is it going to be remembered as a smart PR stunt to simply get people talking about the product? Would we be at all surprised if the product is re-named in a few weeks, due to the weight of negative consumer feedback? We will find out soon enough.
In the meantime, like it’s famous UK counterpart Marmite, you will either love it or hate it (the iSnack 2.0 name I mean).
Update: Kraft has just announced it has dropped the iSnack 2.0 name and will get the Australian public to vote again.
Crossing the Pond Working with the Media in the UK and USA
September 30th, 2009 at 1:52 am
What I can see is the real power that consumers have. Changing the name and voting for a new one WOW. Good that Kraft saw what was going on with their new name and cares about it. Good opportunity also for them to create engagement.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Yes, there is deep engagement occuring. As you would expect, the mainstream news is digging deeper into the story. The Punch (www.thepunch.com.au) has revealed that iSnack 2.0 was registered in Hong Kong two weeks before the competition closed, along with two other names, Snackerific and Crackertime, on July 30. The competition closed on August 14. The question now is whether this was pre-meditated.