As a writer, proper terminology in both fiction and nonfiction is key — the wrong word can ruin even the best idea. In marketing, the same princple holds. So one would think that the use of the adjective “unbreakable” to describe a product is more than just irresponsible, but outright dangerous. Describing a product in such absolute terms is akin to a dare or posing the question “Will it blend?”
This year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) featured a mobile phone from Sonim designed to take extreme abuse, much like Panasonic’s Toughbook laptop series. The product is designed to the company’s “Rugged Performance Standards,” one of which includes an unconditional guarantee, which states that if the phone breaks or malfunctions within the warranty period, it will be replaced the same day, no questions asked.
In Sonim’s defense, the marketing materials don’t directly call the phone unbreakable; a Google search of the website proves this. Here are the three results explained:
- http://www.sonimtech.com/manuals/xp3/XP3_UserGuide_english.pdf – Product manual which (on page 4) explicitly states “However, it is not dust-proof or unbreakable if subjected to overwhelming impact.”
- http://www.sonimtech.com/prdocs/pr_09_20_06c.html – Press release which uses “unbreakable” in the headline but not in the body (and uses it in quotes, too)
- http://www.sonimtech.com/presskit/SonimPRXP1.pdf – Press release with the money quote: “The Sonim XP1 is the only phone in the world engineered for people who work and play outside; people in need of an unbreakable phone. After victorious launches across Europe, it’s time to show Australia how tough this phones really is,” said Bob Plaschke, CEO of Sonim Technologies.
As a brief aside, we’ll examine the word “unbreakable” with the reference of record, the Oxford English Dictionary. The word “unbreakable” first refers back to the prefix “un,” which in the form “un-” + adjective + “-able” is generally accepted as negation starting the 14th century. Widespread use of “unbreakable” as referenced by the OED began in the mid-19th century, which followed the use of “breakable,” or “capable of being broken, frangible,” starting around the 17th century. “Unbreakable” clearly means something not capable of being broken or frangible.
So now we’ve come to the apex of this story. It appears that “unbreakable” can be entirely attributed to the company’s CEO, in theory leaving the company clear of any controversy. So when a BBC reporter at CES smashed the phone against a fish tank after the CEO said “It is basically unbreakable, and if you find a way to break it, we’re going to give you a free phone,” those words became the joke of CES.
CEOs be warned – do not speak about your product in absolute terms unless you are absolutely sure your product meets all of your claims. And don’t use the adjective “unbreakable,” because somewhere, somehow, someone will find a way to break your product.
