The trouble with ‘slag’

Many of the 20th Century's most famous performers were not born with the names we know them by. Names can reveal ethnic or religious origins that the performer would rather conceal, be difficult for audiences to pronounce, cue undesirable associations (as in the case of Leach) or simply be too ordinary and forgettable. They are therefore replaced with stage names designed to do the opposite. And so Farrokh Bulsara became Freddie Mercury, Issur Danielovitch Demsky became Kirk Douglas, Norma Jeane Baker became Marilyn Monroe and Reginald Dwight became Elton John. Would the epitome of all-American masculinity, John Wayne, have succeeded as the metrosexually-named Marion Morrison? Probably not.

Companies give much thought to the names of brands that they own. Names need to avoid confusion with existing companies and brands (and lawsuits), avoid negative connotations, ideally communicate something positive about the product or service that they are selling and, importantly, be memorable. Increasingly they need to work internationally too. This is particularly true for the big brands managed by multinational FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods)companies. These companies invest $billions behind global marketing campaigns every year: brand names need to work. Much time and money is invested in creating and researching potential names for new brands, exploring the pros and cons of an existing brand name where it is to be rolled out to a new geography, or working out how to migrate a brand name owned in one territory to an existing one owned elsewhere (e.g. Marathon to Snickers, Opal Fruit to Starburst), to exploit the significant economies of scale available in marketing communications.

There have been many examples in recent years of companies changing their name to re-invent themselves and to promote a more positive image or following merger or de-merger: for example, Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC (a more positive sounding acronym), Philip Morris became Altria and Anderson Consulting became Accenture. Re-naming and

re-branding is common in government and politics too. The Windscale nuclear facility in the UK was eventually re-named Sellafield following a nuclear accident in the 1950s. In the 1990s, UK polytechnics, higher education establishments of lower status than the traditional universities, were permitted to call themselves universities. They didn't waste any time making the change. Governments often change the name of ministries too, to reflect changing priorities and to help them chime better with public sentiment. Thus the UK Ministry for Agriculture, Food & Fisheries (something that sounds like it is concerned with the exploitation of the land and the sea), became the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (something whose implied mission is more benign). Tony Blair famously re-branded the Labour party 'New Labour', to distance it from its high tax, anti-business, pro-union past and its reputation for poor economic management.

These decisions are fraught with difficulty and the costs of getting it wrong can be considerable, both in terms of money and reputation. The wrong choice can invite lawsuits (Apple Corps vs. Apple Computers), general derision (Ford's Pinto model was always going to have a tough time in Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country, where pinto is a slang word meaning penis) or a consumer backlash (The Royal Mail in the UK provoked a public outcry when it ditched its heritage in favour of the contrived 'Consignia' name. It was eventually forced into an embarrassing and costly retreat). For these reasons, it is always wise to research potential names for new brands or new names for an existing one.

The trouble with 'slag'

According to the online Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'slag' is a noun, meaning 'stony waste separated from metals during smelting or refining of ore'. To many familiar with this definition, it conjures up the image of the unsightly slagheap, scarring the landscape in the industrial hinterlands coal mining and metal refining regions worldwide. It is a waste product, a leftover that no-one wants. The word slag orginates from the medieval German word 'slagge', meaning 'to strike, with reference to the fragments produced by hammering or forging metal' (Chambers Dictionary of Etymology).

However, the word also has other meanings in the popular vernacular. In English-speaking countries, 'a slag' is a promiscuous woman, whilst to 'slag someone off' is to criticise them in an abusive and insulting manner. None of the associations of this word in the public consciousness is positive.

Does this matter? At a basic level, it can be argued that it does not. Life and business goes on. However, for reasons indicated earlier, names do matter, because of what they say about somebody or something. Negative associations can have significant consequences.

Imperfect information

Contrary to the assumptions of modern economics, people do not have access to perfect information when they make decisions and nor do they always make rational choices: Investment bubbles are testament to these facts. As David Hume, that great Enlightenment philosopher and famous empiricist put it, 'Reason is...slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.'

Negative associations - to which names can contribute - are likely to impact an industry in many ways. Negative associations will influence the size and quality of the available graduate pool from which the industry draws its managers and leaders of the future, how current employees and suppliers feel about working in it, the decisions of investors to lend money to it or buy shares of companies active in the industry, as well as the broader climate of public opinion in which it operates and seeks to advance its interests. Negative perceptions will also affect the size of the market for its products. Of course it is difficult to place a value on these effects in the case of the slag industry, but they are likely to be non-trivial.

With CO₂ emissions, Global warming and the remorseless pressure that humanity is placing on Planet Earth never far from newspaper front pages and high on the political agenda, the slag industry has never had a better moment to leave behind its past and re-position itself for a better future. After all, it is in the high-tech, environmentally-responsible business of transforming and recycling materials that would otherwise find their way into landfill sites: material that is versatile and virtually CO₂ free.

Alternatives to 'slag'

With the perjorative connotations of the word 'slag' in mind, delegates at the 6th Global Slag Conference, held in November 2010 in Sydney, were asked to propose alternative names for slag. The response was overwhelming and a selection of the suggestions is seen overleaf.

Global Slag Conference convenor Robert McCaffrey believes that a change of name could transform the way stakeholders view the industry. "Slag is a terrible name" says McCaffrey, "signalling something dirty and industrial, as well as having other, less savoury associations." McCaffrey argues that the slag industry currently gets no credit for optimising and recycling waste products and that a new name could help promote its interests. However, he is under no illusion that change will be easy. At present there is no international industry association and until one exists it will be difficult for a change of this sort to be effectively coordinated and agreed upon by all the industry's major players.

How to change a name?

Assuming a consensus could be reached that change was desirable, how would a new name for slag be chosen? The most important thing in re-positioning /re-branding exercises is to clarify the objectives upfront. This enables clear briefs to be written for creative agencies. Ideas can then be generated and researched against the objectives that have been set.

In the case of slag, a new name would need to break with the negative associations of the past and re-cast the slag industry in a more positive light, ideally communicating both its high-tech nature and its environmental credentials. It would need to work internationally, be short, memorable and ownable. It might also be desirable, for example, for subtle variations on a new name to communicate different product streams.

Researching alternative names does not guarantee success, but it does improve the odds, which is why large FMCG companies invest so much on such research. Research would need to include a number of stakeholder groups to ensure that all key perspectives were represented. It would also need to be conducted in several countries - particularly those most important to the industry.

Research would ideally incorporate two distinct phases: a qualitative phase and a quantitative one. Qualitative research would involve both interviews (for example with CEOs) and focus groups (for example with science students or employees). Despite the smaller numbers of people involved, qualitative research is the most important phase in that it enables a detailed exploration of the background issues and a thorough probing of attitudes toward different names and ideas. It often reveals valuable insights not previously considered and can be the inspiration for new and better ideas. Once a short-list of options has been drawn up, quantitative research could help provide a final check and determine the 'winner.'

Can it be done?

Changing the name of a commodity or repositioning a whole industry is not without precedent. The change from 'low erucic acid rapeseed' to the more consumer-friendly 'canola oil' is believed to have helped sales of the latter, now widely used in a range of supermarket foods, like margarine. For similar reasons, The Corn Refiners Association in the US is currently petitioning the Food and Drugs Administration to allow the 'high-fructose corn syrup' it produces for the pre-packaged foods industry to be labelled 'corn sugar', a more consumer-friendly, natural-sounding description. Again, the hope is that a more positive image will boost industry sales. Whole industries are also repositioning themselves. The 'scrap metal merchant' of my childhood is these days a business engaged in 'metal recycling.' What a difference one word can make!

Suggestions

Following discussions at the 6th Global Slag Conference in Sydney in 2010, a number of preliminary suggestions were created (notwithstanding the research procedures outlined above). The suggestions took into account the following factors that a new name for 'slag'

• Should not mention 'slag' at all
• Should be short and memorable
• Should not be 'confusable'
• Should not have any negative connotations
• Should be 'obtainable'
• Should not be patronising or pompous
• Should be neutral (not over-promising)

Taking these factors into account, a small number of names were generated that could be used for different product streams - and different uses.

The one critical factor to be understood was that the term 'slag' would still be used in the industry, but solely as a term for a molten mass. As soon as molten 'slag' is modified in any way (including its composition, mineralogy and cooling history), it would cease to be 'slag' and would become a product (after all, any intervention costs something)

So, from molten slag, you might create the following slag-sourced products:

BF (air-cooled) - BF Metarock

BF (granulated) - BF Cocem

Converter (air-cooled) - Converter Metarock

Converter (granulated) - Converter Cocem

EAF (air-cooled) - EAF Metarock

EAF (granulated) - EAF Cocem

Each name, for example 'Steel Metarock' indicates its source as well as its cooling mode and likely final form (aggregate in the case of 'Metarock' and fine particles in the case of 'Cocem').

'Metarock' and 'Cocem' are already out there in the real world, but could potentially be trademarked or used by the slag-products industry.

Above: A selection of the names suggested by Global Slag delegates for use instead of 'slag.' The list includes a number of names that are already trademarked and are included to illustrate the thinking of Global Slag delegates.

Is it likely to happen?

In a word, 'No.' There are too many vested interests and there is no global slag-industry leadership to change the status quo.

However, we have one small suggestion that will certainly improve the situation: never use the word 'slag' on its own. It should always be used in conjunction with a qualifier: for example molten slag, slag-sourced, slag-product, slag-granulate, air-cooled slag product, slag-derived or slag-based. GGBFS should rather be ground blast furnace slag-granulate (GBFSG). Remember: there is molten slag and slag products. Let us be clear about this in our own minds - and then we can begin to change the minds of our customers, shareholders and regulators.