We're taking to Twitter this Monday to launch the first ever #ComedyFest, a comedy festival in 140 characters. on.cc.com/11Eo6zv

— Comedy Central (@ComedyCentral) April 26, 2013

Starting today at 5PM EST/2PM PST, Comedy Central and more than 50 popular comedians such as The Daily Show’s Al Madrigal, Lil Rel Howery and Amy Schumer are participating in a social media event that brings the Comedy Central and Twitter brands together. Building on and disrupting the Twitter Party, the brands are launching #ComedyFest.

Tonight’s kickoff event, Mel Brooks Joins Twitter, features Carl Reiner and Judd Apatow as moderator. Following the hashtag #ComedyFest, people can join in all of the action from @MelBrooks’ historic first tweet tonight through Friday, May 3.

Businesses and bloggers have long known the opportunity that lies in the Twitter hashtag to create Twitter Parties, promote products and ideas and find follow-worthy content. Twitter began using the hashtag as early as 2007 and they’re very popular today. Chances are you’ve used a few. (Hashtags are words or phrases that follow behind the # symbol.) They’re currently found in use on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest and GooglePlus. Now Facebook too is weighing getting in on the hashtag action.

Facebook is working on incorporating the hashtag into its network as a way to start up group conversations. The feature will allow users to grab posts regarding aspecific topic or event in order to build conversations, keeping users connected and logged on even longer than before.

This move could be a result of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram last year. Instagram already uses the symbol to sort photos.

Spectators believe the new feature speaks to the ongoing business rivalry with Twitter. While Facebook is and remains much larger than Twitter, generating $4.3 billion in advertising last year, the competition is prevalent.

The WSJ reports, “Facebook's work on a hashtag is a sign of the heightening battle between Facebook and Twitter, as both compete for mobile users and fight for advertising dollars. For years, Twitter and Facebook seemed to occupy different poles of the social-media spectrum. While Facebook was the home of close friends and family, Twitter was the real-time broadcasting device for the rest of the world.”

Some are totally against the new feature. A Facebook page named “This is not Twitter. Hashtags don’t work here.” was set up and has more than 12,000 likes. However, there are many social media experts and users alike that think this is a great feature that will enhance user experience.

Marketing seems to benefit the most from the use of hashtags in social media. Experts encourage companies to use hashtags in marketing messages on Twitter and other social media platforms. Continuous use of hashtags can help a brand go viral and generating more traffic.

Hashtags can also help humanize brands, making them appealing to consumers. Hashtags make information easier to find, and that’s important. As a social media user myself, I enjoy having information given to me at lightning speed without the hassle of a full internet search. Other benefits of hashtags are promotion, unification, conversation, targeting and innovation, as Forbes noted.

Question: So if Twitter is responsible for the success of hashtags, why don’t they own a trademark for it? Answer: Twitter has yet to register for a hashtag trademark.

In fact, none of the major players in the social network industry have applied for trademark registrations for the word or symbol. From a trademark perspective hashtags could also be considered as an industry standard and functional in the category. If so, Twitter cannot claim rights to hashtags, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the offering.

The use of a product feature as a trademark would put competitors at a disadvantage. This could be the reason Facebook does not own the trademark for the word Like, outside of its famous thumb up design. While we love a great trademark dispute, there won’t be one brewing here. Just seems like a game of fair or unfair competition.

Nicole Briggs is an Associate Trademark Consultant for Interbrand.

Last Thursday, as we were watching Mark Zuckerberg present the new Android phone experience, we welcomed with delight the name associated with this world-changing innovation: Home.

From a naming perspective, Home shines with simplicity, is easy to remember and has the privilege of being one of the few English words that is well understood globally. Braving the challenges of obtaining a trademark in such a crowded industry, Home perfectly reflects the fondness of tech brands for short, real-word names with great communication potential.

This is where the name is ingenious. Primarily, Home denotes the idea of a familiar, safe, intimate place, where everyone is free to be themselves. In the context of Facebook's intent to remain faithful to the brand values and proposition (i.e. open, connection and people-focused), the name also promises a more intense and expansive social experience.

Facebook redefines the user interface from a traditional homepage to a more personal home, making the physical and the digital worlds even closer. Still, some could argue that Home mirrors the privacy challenges that Facebook has been known for. Your social home is your safe place, but it is also open to everyone and there is no front door key.

It will be interesting to follow whether Facebook Home will succeed in making the world more connected. Now, with this name ready to appear on millions of devices, we will definitely keep an eye out to see whether the significance of "home" will evolve toward a more connected experience, similar to the evolution of the significance of "friend" in recent years under Facebook's influence.

Jennifer Vasilache is a Senior Consultant for Interbrand’s New York Verbal Identity department.

Pictured: Martin Cooper (from ArrayComm) & Facebook Home

Yesterday the world celebrated the 40th anniversary of Motorola's demonstration of its portable telephone, the DYNA TAC system. Martin Cooper, then Vice President of Motorola, Inc., is said to have called a rival at AT&T's Bell Labs from the streets of New York City. According to an April 3, 1973 press release from Motorola, the new portable phone was expected to be available for public use as soon as 1976. The cell phone took a bit longer to take off with the public, but four decades later smartphones have become part of our daily lives and today president and CEO, AT&T Mobility, Ralph de la Vega was on hand at Facebook's big unveiling of Facebook Home.

As David Vales, Senior Systems Engineer for Interbrand, noted in his recent blog post, Smart Phone Sector Heats Up With Big Launches, with BlackBerry's Z10 now available in the US and Samsung's release of the S4, which Vales describes as "very impressive," the smartphone race is intensifying. Today's Facebook unveiling was the introduction of Home, software designed to "turn your Android phone into a great, living, social phone," according to Tom Alison and Adam Mosseri in Facebook's newsroom. The first phone to come with Home pre-installed will be the HTC First, available exclusively from AT&T on April 12. Home will be downloadable on other Android devices, but won't have all of the features of HTC First.

"Apps aren't at the center, but people are at the center and we bought into that" said de la Vega at the event. The new Home-ready HTC First phone will run on AT&T's 4G LTE network and will cost $99.99. Tech writer Chris Taylor who heads Mashable's editorial team commented, "Great coup for HTC and AT&T -- probably the largest captive audience they've had for a phone announcement." Mark Zuckerberg noted, "By putting people first, and then apps, it's one of many small, but meaningful changes in our relationship with technology over time."

Facebook Home brings its News Feed experience to users' mobile home screen. The new Home experience includes Cover Feed, Notifications, App Launcher, Instagram and Chat Heads. The latter, a mobile messenger that allows users to reply directly to friends instantly or move a floating head image of a friend when not ready to respond, inspired strong reactions in the comments section of Mashable's live streaming of the event. Chris Taylor reacted,"'Chatheads.' -- really?" and "'Chathead.' it really is going to take a while to get used to that word." 

Caitlin Barrett, Associate Director of Verbal Identity for Interbrand and the creative lead for Naming, responds to the name Chat Heads, "It's hard to say whether Chat Heads will change behaviors and expectations the way the 'Like' button did, but the name is just as absurdly simple—and perfectly aligns with the new chat experience." 

Barrett adds, "Is it awkward? A bit, as it doesn't seem necessary to specify the parts of your friends with which you're chatting. And it doesn't fall naturally into everyday conversation: Will we talk about it like a platform? 'We talked on Chat Heads earlier today…' Or an activity? 'Let's Chat Heads later tonight.' This might very well be the point. If Facebook wants this to simply be the way we chat on Facebook, perhaps it doesn't want to take the hit by trying to brand what could easily become a generic term for this new style of chat. So is it a bad name? Certainly not. We all giggled at the iPad when it was first launched too, but as long as the functionality proves to be differentiated and useful, the name will cease to be part of the story."

What does Facebook Home for Android mean for Apple? Several commenters in Mashable's chat and on Twitter expressed new shifting interest from Apple phones to Android. 

As discussed on CNBC recently, concerns about Apple are growing. Colin Gillis of BGC Financial, CNBC's Jon Fortt and Interbrand's Jez Frampton discussed the slowdown in orders at China's Foxconn and if this is a sign of problems for Apple. Frampton observed, "In terms of the brand, there's no doubt about the fact that Apple still is one of the pacesetters in the market, Samsung are giving them a good run for their money, but this lack of innovation is a concern. To be honest we've been taught as consumers to expect the next new thing every other week almost, and now they're slow on the iPhone 5S. And what's next? Where's Apple TV?"

Gillis added, "The market is still valuing [Apple] well north of $400 billion, but the market is changing. What we're seeing is lower cost competitors are getting traction. ...For Apple to maintain their margins and to maintain the volume units, they need to keep innovating and that's an issue for the company right now."

What does it mean for Google? Commentor Lance Ulanoff asked Chris Taylor during the live chat today, "Has anyone asked specifically about Google+? Chris Taylor responded, "Nope, but this really does seem like another nail in Google+'s coffin." JoeyMartin91 commented, "If I'm Google, I'm nervous. Facebook just took my niche market and rewrapped it." Robert Stephens, founder of The Geek Squad and former CTO of Best Buy, tweeted:

QOTD "@parislemon: Facebook not forking Android -- more like spooning it."

— Robert Stephens (@rstephens) April 4, 2013

The reveal today raises a number of questions about privacy concerns, battery life and, of course, consumer interest. Understanding consumers will have many questions, Facebook has planned for trials of Home before users commit to downloading it or purchasing the HTC First pre-loaded with Home, a smart move. We'll also be following this initial post with more on Home and what it means for the marketplace in blogs to come.

Amy Edel-Vaughn is Interbrand's Community Manager.

In these difficult times, armed with their digital voice, we can quickly see the changes in public sentiment. Getting on the wrong side of the mood of the moment can prove expensive.

Take something we all feel emotionally about: taxes.

In the UK recent studies showed that public sentiment quickly turned against celebrities who have taken advise to minimize their tax bills. Such schemes are often totally legal, but still feel wrong to the public. After all, the general public has no such access to the expert pin-striped financial advice and see no option for themselves other than to pay their fair way and therefore contribute proportionally to public services.

The comedian Jimmy Carr was a recent notable case. He had not violated tax laws, but he allegedly used a tax avoidance scheme that was deemed inappropriate in the court of public opinion. He spotted that misjudging public sentiment could be costly to the value of his celebrity and more expensive mistake than paying his perceived tax obligations outright. Carr quickly apologized and recompensed the public coffers.

But what of corporations that use sharp tax practices to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they derive income? Doesn't this have the potential to be perceived as even worse in the public eye?

Brands benefit from their popularity across the globe. They can also be harmed when consumer sentiment turns.

As reported in brandchannel, US companies doing business in the UK, including Starbucks, Facebook, Google and Amazon, are now finding themselves in the hot seat for paying staggeringly low tax rates in the UK. Accordingly, the risk of public wrath for the customers in the UK who help create wealth for these brands could be staggeringly high.

The corporate world has had public image and trust issues for many years now. If much beloved celebrity entertainers such as Jimmy Carr can be compelled to be contrite and publicly apologize, what are the dangers to brand value it has taken companies years to build?

Risk managers and tax advisers would do well to engage in listening to public sentiment and consider its potential damage to brand value. The lesson from the Shareholder Spring, the Occupy Movement and the rise of consumer power in the post-digital age is that there is little acceptance of separate rules for companies and individuals when it comes to rights and responsibilities. Being a good citizen matters for brands and consumers alike.

Starbucks, Facebook, Google and Amazon are all top 100 brands on our Best Global Brands 2012 report because, as Interbrand's CEO Jez Frampton notes, they have demonstrating an understanding of "the role they play in peoples' lives and respond accordingly — building on successes and making up for mistakes. They are constantly nurturing their brands to keep pace in a rapidly changing world; they know that every market is different, every interaction counts, and every individual matters. Quite an achievement in such turbulent times." But in this instance, on this issue, they appear to be teetering on the brink of a PR disaster that without an appropriate response will evidently unfold in the not so distant future.

Brands need to remember they have the power to change the world. And are expected to be good citizens within it. As Jimmy Carr found, misjudging public sentiment is no laughing matter. Playing fair and remembering how savvy consumers are in a world with constant global information are keys to building better brands now. As Tom Zara and Peter Cendella note in Citizens All: The New Rules of Corporate Citizenship, "It’s about the credibility of a company’s culture of citizenship."

Graham Hales is CEO of Interbrand London.

Generation Y, the Trophy Generation, Echo Boomers, the MTV Generation. Millennials have been labeled in ways as diverse as their political outlook in recent years, but none of the titles give more insight into how to manage and harness the power of this group than the moniker of “The Peter Pan” generation.

On the face of it this group of 80m+ Americans, born between 1983 and 2001 (per Elwood Carlson) is awash with confusing contradictions. This is a group that believes it should be rewarded, not just for winning, but for playing at all. They exhibit a deep sense of community but only 35% keep up to date with political affairs (University of Michigan, Monitoring of the Future study). They have the highest expectations of their role in the workplace while facing the highest unemployment levels in over a decade. They want to be constantly challenged but rarely display the desire to stick to any task for more than 18 months or so. In fact there is a pretty high chance that most of them have already stopped reading this blog post by now.

There is a temptation to dismiss this group as confused, untamable and entitled but that would be to the significant detriment of American business.

What unites the great growth stories in recent US business is how ably these businesses have harnessed the characteristics of the Peter Pan generation to create massive success. Businesses like Google, Facebook and even IBM have achieved unheard of scale, IPO’d quickly (in some cases) and recognized huge value by ensuring that the hunger for community, participation, access and variety was met.

Where this generation is well placed to outstrip its predecessors is in that difficult second act. One thing that most of our clients accept is that to be relevant and profitable in future, they will need to partner effectively and extend their brand and business beyond their core offering. The millennial mindset is one that craves that diversification; it requires it to continue to be challenged. They are redefining the meaning of Peter Pan by refusing to grow up but demanding to grow out at the same time.

The millennial mindset makes leaps, takes risks and embraces ideas because idea based companies afford them the room and flexibility to grow and make an impact. It is no surprise that Google was the most preferred future employer of 18% of Millennials surveyed (source: Millennial Inc.). When they were asked “Why Google?” the answer wasn’t pay or prestige but because they felt “their ideas would make an impact there.” The brands that stand for ideas rather than products will be the ones that attract the greatest talent pool of millennials. The ones that give them an environment where they can be impactful quickly will drive their business in new directions and open up greenfields to drive choice, loyalty and charge price premiums.

To do that, companies need to ensure that their core brand idea is well crafted and well understood internally. They need clarity and commitment from senior executives to ensuring the vision is intimately and explicitly linked to business decision making. Most of all, they require the responsiveness to ensure that their employees are heard and recognized at whatever level for their ideas because now, more than ever the Peter Pan Generation are motivated and have the means, role models and wherewithal to fly away and make it on their own.

Hugh Tallents is a Strategy Director at Interbrand New York. He is not a Millennial, but sometimes acts like one when it suits him.