Tag Archives: Freakonomics

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

RIMS 2011 Wrap Up

Posted on by

Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner talks risk at RIMS 2011 Vancouver.

It was an exhilarating, educational, exciting and eye-opening week for those of us who enjoyed RIMS 2011 in Vancouver throughout the past week. Having made the long journey back to New York yesterday, I sit here today leafing through my notes from great conversations, thinking back upon the events I attended and appreciating all the friendly faces I met.

In the days to come, we will surely have a few more posts related to what we learned or thought up during the show, but for now I’ll leave you with a look back at the week that was as we head into the weekend — one certain to include a lot of sleep for these battle-worn editor.

RIMS 2011 Coverage from the Risk Management Monitor:

Managing Reputation Before The Product Exists

Posted on by

We talk a lot about reputation risk around this parts. A tarnished brand has increasingly been identified as a leading threat and as BP and Toyota have seen, it can have long-lasting drawbacks to the company.

At this point, most have come to realize the importance of reputation and brand recognition. So while this isn’t really about risk management or protecting the brand, I thought this Freakonomics post about how pharmaceuticals strategically create brand names for their drugs that include the letters X and Z would interest you.

“Reflecting their infrequent occurrence in English words, x and z count for 8 and 10 points in Scrabble, the highest values (along with j and q) in the game. So names that contain them are likely to seem special and be memorable. ‘If you meet them in running text, they stand out,’ is the way one industry insider explained.” The trend, however, is relatively recent, which Stepney attributes to a couple factors. “I suggest that this phenomenon arose because of the fast rate at which new products were being introduced, the fact that the difference between many “me too” drugs was more apparent than real, the immense rewards that were seen to accrue from innovative marketing, and the fact that the ploys available for use in the naming of drugs are so restricted.”

You think this would work for insurance?