Agreed, Mr G, but dog grooming shops are expensive.
Victorian property developers and their successors knew what they were doing when they applied the Hampstead name to huge parts of N London - Hampstead Village, Hampstead, Hampstead Garden Suburb, West Hampstead, South Hampstead......have I missed any.
Place names do matter to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Branding rules apply. Just as you can't make a great brand out of a good name, you'll never have a winning brand with a crap, inconsistently or badly managed name.
you'll never have a winning brand with a crap, inconsistently or badly managed name.
One example that contradicts this is Bulmers/Magners cider. It's been heavily marketed, but the name/brand has been handled in a completely cackhanded fashion.
This was originally marketed as one brand in the Republic of Ireland, one brand in the UK. However, for whatever reason, today both brands are sold in pubs in the UK, and I've seen advertising for both. The fact that it's exactly the same product (even has the same packaging) being marketed under two brand names doesn't seem to have had any impact on its meteoric rise to success, dragging all other cider sales up with it (very pleasing to a West-of-England native like myself).
Of course it's impossible to try and make some general point comparing Magners/Bulmers cider with our area, but I think this does show that nomenclature, whilst a part of branding, isn't necessarily a brand maker or breaker.
Interesting example Mr G, but I think this is a case of the exception proving the rule. Great brands get to be great brands through great marketing and a product that doesn't stink. Mess with the name and your carefully cultivated brand equity goes out the window as surely as potato blight would do for your latest crop.
(Great so now we have dog, dog grooming, cider and potatoes invoked in a discussion about Harringay. What a voyage of discovery!)