Over the weekend, Kraft announced the results of its attempt to generate a new name for its new Vegemite with spreadable cheese product: iSnack 2.0. It sent Australians with an internet connection into alternate paroxysms of disbelief and pure schadenfreude. Ruth Brown from Crikey neatly summarises the initial tsunami of contempt:

...folks from every conceivable community and sub-culture were united by their shared hatred of the name: skiers hated it, club kids hated it, Mac fanboys hated it, footy fans hated it, homosexuals hated it, foodies hated it, gamers hated it, body-builders hated it, the British Army hated it, highschool students hated it, mums hated it, stock traders hated it, and Delta Goodrem fans hated it.

The thing that struck me about the online coverage of the iSnack 2.0 foofaraw was that so few of the participants actually ate the stuff. I certainly hadn't and it didn't halt me from spawning a comment into Twitter. I like to think that it was out of the perverse love for Vegemite that results in a kneejerk response to anything that besmirches its good name. So why did this particular spread unite Australia in collective online glee at Kraft's marketing shortcomings? Why was nobody evaluating the product on its merits or lack thereof?

Vegemite is one of the handful of foods that is both iconic for the purposes of national identity and a brand. The owners of the brand could do whatever they liked with it - without regard to public sentiment - and iSnack 2.0 is a handy reminder of this. Brands that have become national icons extend their brands at their peril: changing them in any way is seen as a threat to shared identity and thus the shared outpouring of rancor.

After the initial contempt, it became hard not to question whether this was all a public relations trap, a trap into which I am currently playing myself, this blog, and by extension, SBS. I cannot remember the last time that I discussed a branded sandwich spread, possibly, it was a conversation about an equally questionable aberration like spray-on cheese or pre-combined peanut butter and jelly. Neither conversation resulted in myself or the conversation participants buying the product. Regardless of whether this was a calculated marketing campaign or not, what happens next?

1. "Surprise! It was all a terrible, terrible joke. Get it?"

It might betray the 48,000 competition entries and presumably, there is a correlation between submitting a name and eating the new spread but it will stem the hate and probably spark off a second round of commentary on the new name. The cycle continues.

2. Someone sues them, they change the name, everyone wins!

Kraft were not the first corporation to think that iSnack was a good name and the trademark is yet to be processed. Breville has previously trademarked it for "Cooking apparatus including snack makers and sandwich toasters" and a brand of US snack foods used it in their execrably named "iSnack Soy Cyber Chips". The Cyber Chips have an abstruse and inscrutable serving suggestion as "Perfect for a Lap-Top or as a Desk Accessory", so it is altogether possible that they are not a snack food at all. A legal battle would be an easy out.

3. The product sinks leaving a rich, cheesy trail. Like Crystal Pepsi.

For public relations, it becomes a clear lesson in how social media will amplify your mistakes and a cautionary tale for anybody responsible for a well-loved brand.