MasterCard card. Card card. Card.

Originally posted 2008-12-17 12:21:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Mastercard Card

A reader writes to New York Times Q&A guy Stuart Elliot with a question that’s on a lot minds:  What’s with this “Mastercard card” stuff you hear on the commercials?  There are, evidently, two answers, the second of which was LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®’s guess and the first of which is… well, here, read it for yourself:

“Essentially, many times it’s because we’re driving consumers to use their physical payment card,” says Jon Schwartz, a spokesman for MasterCard Worldwide in Purchase, N.Y., “so we must distinguish between our brand and the MasterCard-branded credit or debit cards that consumers utilize to make purchases.”

You must, eh?  Well, in this humble marketing-and-branding-savvy-law-blogger’s opinion, you’re not.  We can barely follow what you’re talking about, and that’s because what you’re talking about, Jon — can we call you Jon?, thanks — is incoherent.  MasterCard may think consumers understand this distinction via a 30-second spot, but how can they when it doesn’t even make sense no matter how long you stare at it in black and white?

MasterCard, he says, wants us to distinguish between these two things:

  1. “our brand” and
  2. “the MasterCard-branded credit or debit cards that consumers utilize to make purchases”

Well, what is “your brand” besides “the MasterCard-branded credit or debit cards that consumers utilize to make purchases”?  Can people use the “brand” at the local haberdasher while keeping their plastic in their wallets?  And, far be it from us to give out free legal advice to a company that has more than once ignored a demand letter from us (and to good effect!), but if there is such a distinction — if (1) and (2) are not the same thing — then whose “brand” is the “brand” in (2), and why aren’t you suing them for trademark infringement?

Which leads us to reason number two:  Trademark infringement.

Another reason for the seeming redundancy is trademark issues. “MasterCard is a trademark name, which should be followed by a generic noun,” Mr. Schwartz says. That is because using a trademark as a noun could weaken its uniqueness, as the trademark lawyers for brands like Band-Aid, Kleenex and Xerox could attest.

That’s what we figured, but we were hoping for something better than that.

Is there a realistic concern that in a market saturated with credit and debit cards, even an iconic brand such as MasterCard could morph into a generic term for “any credit card”?  Is it really conceivable that the following conversation could take place?:

“Marge, can you get my wallet out of my coat in the back seat and pull out a mastercard for me so I can pay for the fillup?”

“Which mastercard, Fred?  The Amex mastercard or the Visa mastercard or the MasterCard mastercard?”

“Oh, it doesn’t matter.  One mastercard’s as good as another!  But let’s use the Visa mastercard.”

Survey says:  No.  Band-Aid, Kleenex and Xerox flirted with genericness because they were early and dominant entrants in categories they actually created and “owned” for years before other brands made a dent in their domination (see here for Band-Aid; Kleenex; Xerox).  In contrast, MasterCard presently holds a mere 27% global market share for “general purpose” charge cards.  With all due respect, MasterCard is in no danger of becoming a generic term for “credit card” — even though, yes, it has the word “card” in it.

“MasterCard card” is a bad advertising and marketing idea that’s distracting to consumers and, as we put it in the branding game, just sounds dumb.   Unless the Times got Jon Schwartz wrong, it seems that poorly thought-out rationales, both brand-wise and legal-wise (as they used to say on Madison Avenue), are driving the kard-kard koncept.

It should be kanned.


Tags: , , , ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

11 Responses to “MasterCard card. Card card. Card.”

  1. December 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    It’s the same branding that brings you “The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.”

  2. November 4, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    I really enjoyed this article. I wish I would have seen the commercial at the time.

  3. August 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    By the way, on reflection… today, about two years after it was first published, I’m not sure I agree with everything I said in this post. While I still believe there is very little chance of MASTERCARD becoming generic for “credit card,” it may still be the case that fundamental trademark hygiene demands that, at least periodically, you avoid the use of your trademark as a noun — as suggested in this tweet.

  4. tim maguire
    July 2, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    Do they really believe (do they expect us to think) that MasterCard the company is something distinct from MasterCard the card we carry around in our wallets?

    Sad to say, but from a Trademark standpoint, their lawyers are just being careful lawyers. But that first explanation? Why bother?

    • July 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

      Should lawyers be making the ultimate decisions about branding for such a major brand? I don’t think so.


  1. Scott Greenfield - December 17, 2008

    RT @RonColeman: LIKELY / CONFUSION MasterCard card. Card card. Card.: A reader writes to New York Times Q&#38..

  2. Laura Lee - November 1, 2009

    LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® | MasterCard card. Card card. Card. | Ron Coleman:

  3. Robb Shecter - August 23, 2010

    RT @RonColeman: When not to fear genericide:

  4. Nina H.Lanina - August 23, 2010

    RT @RonColeman: RT @McGarryBair: Use your trademark as an adjective (e.g. COKE® brand soda, not "glass of Coke®"). | Yes, but see

  5. Mei_Ko - July 2, 2011

    RT @roncoleman: MasterCard card. Card card. Card.

  6. - Brian Conroy - Data Protection, Media & Intellectual Property Lawyer Ireland - September 2, 2015

    […] The Mastercard Card (the what now?) – […]