I remember seeing a sign with those words as I rode across the country in my father’s yellow Pontiac Sunbird in 1976. I think it kept me laughing for about two states. Every time I thought of it I was unable to speak until something else distracted me (usually my elder sister threatening to bring me to an untimely end.)
I was five, okay? I’m bigger than she is now, so the threats have ceased.
I often wish I could remember what state the sign was in – or at least wish I had been smart enough to snap a Polaroid of it. Alas I have no idea where I saw it and didn’t have the camera ready.
So when I read Laura Ries’ blog about a gas station with an unusual name I was prepared to reminisce… but I ended up being more grossed out than anything else.
Why would anyone name their gas station Kum & Go? (I agree with Laura that the name is pretty crude.)
A look at the company history doesn’t provide much help (other than to indirectly point out that the company was founded by two men whose last names begin with K and G), and neither does the infamous (and profane) urban dictionary. What is helpful though is a look at an online etymology dictionary for the word “cum.” The key is to notice that the crude application appears to have begun in 1973 – or more than a decade after the company had established itself. (I’m not clear based on the description whether the sexual overtones were applied to this particular spelling or on the root word “come” from the 1920s. You certainly can’t argue that the word “come” is off limits for convenience stores…)
So the question seems to become one less focused on why they named the company Kum & Go and more on why they didn’t adapt when culture introduced a negative connotation.
What would you do if your own company or personal name became slang for a sexual act? Certainly it would be cause to evaluate ones name and see if the association will hurt the brand, or if the brand can take advantage of the new meaning. In this case it seems that the company evaluated it and decided that sticking with the name was a nod to the “risk taking” atmosphere mentioned in the company history. The fact that the connotation isn’t addressed at all seems to be part of the strategy.
Certainly not one that we would recommend (though it certainly is buzz-worthy even if it doesn’t do anything to reinforce the original brand.)
That said, I think I’ll leave Pump and Munch well enough alone…
(Thanks for bringing up the topic Laura!)
Tate Linden
Principal Consultant
Stokefire Consulting Group
703-778-9925
Nov
29
2006
