What if we can't "google" anymore?
Sigh..this is depressing. I am supposed to be careful with yet another word.
But I don't get this... Shouldn't companies be rejoicing when their brand names slip into colloquil vocabulary? I don't get why they get all stuffy about it. Remember how Xerox protested about the use of the word "xerox" as a verb -- and it did so after having waited till the word almost replaced "photocopy" . http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=18492
And now I hear, it is my very favourite, Google (!!!) who is now objecting to the usage of the word "google" as a verb... It does seem like it will soon go the Xerox way. It was just last month that the word "google" entered the latest edition of Merriam-Webster's dictionary. And in less than a month, the company seems to has gotten edgy about the implications.
Why oh why?! If I had a brand that became so popular that it entered everyday vocabulary, I would be ecstatic! And once the verb becomes part of colloquil and later formal language, should you even bother to monitor the context it is used in? Yes, the hitch would be that even if consumers used other brands, it would be an issue in case of quality. But consumers are not fools. They don't tar the reputation of Brand X if Brand Y proved useless... And no matter what the other brands do, your brand will still be at the top of mind and if you retain the quality, noone can beat the position your brand has earned in consumer mindspace. Do you even think of going to AskJeeves.com anymore?
Anyhoo. After an article appeared in Washington Post referring to Google as having moved beyond a particular product to become a descriptor of an entire sector -- generic trademarks. After the article appeared, apparently Google sent out letters advising journalists, to avoid the "genericide" -- which I gather is a term supposed to mean the murder of the brand equity of first mover brands in a category by using the names to represent or describe the category itself.
Which is still understandable. But Google has laid down certain rules for the context in which it is appropriate to use the verb "google". For instance:
"Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he's listed in the results.

Inappropriate: He googles himself."

"Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party.

Inappropriate: I googled that hottie."

Does this make sense?

PS: Have you tried googling for google and "miserable failure" and clicked the "I feel lucky" tab?

Getting nowhere: There have been times when I thought I was getting somewhere and there have been times when I knew I was getting nowhere... And this is surely one. In fact the first two words to check into the empty space of my groggy mind this morning were : getting nowhere. Like the residue of a forgotten dream from the night. Just two words that remained. That was scary. Among my other idiosyncracies is a nagging habit of keeping a watch on the thoughts that the night dreams leave on your mind as they leave you. I rarely remember the dream but I remember the thoughts they leave behind -- like sticking post-its on your pillow before they fly out of the window. Sadly I am not one of those lucky people who while dreaming know they will wake up to reality. Still in typical optimism, I shut my eyes tight waiting to fall asleep again and wake up to some better words. Like I ensure that exactly 1.5 spoonfuls of sugar go into my morning coffee. But any hoo. I failed. And nothing else seems to be working. So here I am listening to backmasked songs and pretending it is helping. I am even laughing like I am off my rocker, listening to what back masking has done to Britney Spears' 'Hit me Baby'. If that does not work, I plan to chuck my new diet. And have cheesecake.

V for Vendetta and other thoughts...
I must say that watching "V for Vendetta"this weekend turned my initial apprehension about the movie on its head. The movie is a great watch for those who have at some time spared a thought about governments and the power they have to effect our lives as individuals... If you've ever wondered what role they would play 50 years later, do watch this movie... Set in the late 2000's, the movie has a good script, and the characters make some simple but solid statements.. and they do make you think. After long comes a movie which uses an imagined and far-fetched plot set in the future to make its point. Interestingly, one of the dialogues in the movie encapsulates the style of the movie itself : "Artists use lies to tell the truth... Politicians use lies to cover up the truth."
But the one that made me run this course of thoughts was : "People should not be scared of Governments. Governments should be scared of its people." This is what V, the risen-from-the-ashes protagonist says...
Currently it is happening in the US in some ways...In the US, people do have the ****s to question the government and the police. We still hear of the public demanding enquiries into the 9/11 attacks and the government's role in them. We hear of suits being filed against the government and its policies. And it reflects in some itty bitty everyday incidents too. For example, someone was telling me about this girl who was caught speeding above the limit in the US, while she was busy yakking on the cellphone. Now hear this objectively without letting the do's and don'ts of safe driving come into your mind. The policeman while issuing her ticket, told her to stop talking on the cellphone. She put the phone on hold and replied, "Does the law say talking on the cellphone is a crime?". No, m'am. "Then why don't you just issue me the ticket and be done with it, please?" was her cool response. And the policeman did just that and went away.
But such instances notwithstanding, it won't be an exaggeration to say that perhaps the developed societies we see stand the risk of going the way V feels. It's like this. While complete obedience and respect for the law does lead to safer and better society, adherence without thinking may slowly lead to lack of questioning and ignorance and then apathy. It is at such times that governments will piggyback on the apathy and ignorance to exercise their vested interests. And it is in such societies so used to and pampered by security and discipline and convenience that governments can easily create fear -- of potential, possible or suspected disruption of the life the citizens are so used to -- to justify its own actions. This "disruption" is mostly in the form of "terrorist attacks" or "threats to national security". Paranoia is not just fearing the un-happened and unforeseen. Paranoia is also fearing the present to change. Create paranoia and the people will believe. Simply because it is common knowledge that on an average, pampered and spoilt kids grow up to have a low tolerance level for things that put their cosy lives and routines in disarray.
And it is perhaps already beginning to happen in developed societies, where the law is above all individuals. A friend of mine suggested a simple exercise to do to find out how you, as an individual, don't matter in a society of law-abiding and unquestioning citizens. He suggests that you drive on a highway in the US with no particular destination in mind. Just keep driving aimlessly and then when you find a good location to park on one of the shoulders and watch the sunset, just sit there watching the sunset. In no time, a police car will stop beside you to enquire if "everything is okay". Yes, you say. The police officer waves and drives away. Stay there for more than half an hour and you will be asked again, this time the question will be tinged with suspicion. Stay longer and eventually you stand a big chance of landing in the police station for questioning. They know you might not be a terrorist after they check your records. They know you appear harmless and were not being an inconvenience to passing cars. But that you just wanted to chill out on a highway doing nothing but watching the sunset is not acceptable to them. YOU as an individual, don't matter.
If this strikes a chord, the movie will too.