One reason naming a business or a product is so hard: Everyone thinks it’s easy. Saying everything you need to in a few letters or syllables is, in fact, not easy. But how do you know when you’ve succeeded? What makes a good name?
The answer: decision criteria based upon a set of defined objectives. Holding a name to an established set of criteria will help you make a decision and drive that decision through the organization. We generally look to four areas:
1) Strategic criteria. Does the name support the positioning and reflect the personality? Is it relevant to key audiences? Is it distinctive in the space?
A recent client in the online video space had a name that was more a reflection of where it was than where it is going. Yet because the company was a leader in the category, its existing though outdated name had substantial equity among key stakeholders and customer groups. If it were launching today, its name would not be ideal–but the fact was, the name was not really broken either. Changing the name would have required a significant communication investment to transfer equity, and in this case, there was limited upside on the potential return. The solution: Keep the name; update the positioning and the brand identity; leverage the existing brand equity, modifying the message to most efficiently communicate the company’s current vision and promise to the market.
2) Functional criteria. Does the name work within the context of what is being communicated? Is it appropriately descriptive or suggestive or evocative (depending on the chosen approach)? Are there Web-related issues to consider, such as URL adaptability or availability?
It is very common for b-to-b clients to seek cool-sounding, evocative names for their products. Yet b-to-b often lends itself to more-descriptive naming, keeping attention and limited marketing dollars focused on the corporate name. There is certainly a place for other naming approaches in a b-to-b environment, yet the knee-jerk reaction within product groups to discount the value and power of the corporate name is an impulse that is usually best reconsidered.
Naming for consumers can be very different, though it doesn’t have to be It comes back to the goals of a new name and the strength and extensibility of the corporate brand.
The Sony portfolio offers some interesting examples of divergent naming approaches based upon need, including subbrands that are descriptive (like the Sony Reader for e-books), suggestive (Walkman, Cyber-shot), and evocative (Bravia, Vaio). Despite the differences, each of these has a story behind them where each makes sense.
Sony Reader is an entry into a long-struggling category, so reliance on the Sony name is strongest. Walkman created a category at introduction and remains one of the best suggestive names there is (which is why Sony continues to try to maintain it despite the virtual obsolescence of the original category). Cyber-shot was an attempt to capture this magic, obviously with far less success. Bravia and Vaio suggest efforts to refocus and reenergize the powerful Sony brand within established product categories, and Sony’s substantial ad budgets are built into the rationale for such names to be developed.
3) Linguistic criteria. Is the name easy to understand, explain, pronounce? Is it free from inappropriate connotations on a global basis?
One of my favorite naming goofs involved the introduction of the Chevy Nova in Mexico: “No va” means “it doesn’t run” in Spanish. Yet far less egregious oversights can doom a new product or corporate name.
An interesting recent name to consider here is Wii (pronounced “we”), the gaming console from Nintendo. Wii doesn’t really make sense in any language (though the blogosphere was temporarily abuzz with wee-wee jokes). It is a purely fanciful, arbitrary name to which Nintendo has attached some interesting rationale, such as the fact that it looks like two people gaming together. Plus the ongoing discussions about this very different type of name have helped to keep this new product in the public consciousness for months. This is a nice of example of taking advantage of awkward/confusing spelling or pronunciation and leveraging it to generate buzz and awareness.
4) Legal criteria. Is it available for use and protectable as a trademark in all relevant classes? This is really the factor that can shorten a list of good names in a hurry.
No naming initiative is complete without a call to the lawyers. Before you get too attached to any one name, and certainly before you work to sell it within the organization, make sure you can own it as you need to. Falling in love with a name that somebody else owns can become a costly, time-consuming, and potentially fruitless obsession. Bring your legal team into the process early, before you have a chance to get too attached to any one moniker. The ongoing Apple/Cisco imbroglio over the “iPhone” trademark is a case in point and will be an interesting one to watch.
Creativity and inspiration are key steps in the naming process. Yet so are strategy and objectivity. A set of criteria against which to measure all naming candidates will help you to build consensus internally and can form the basis for any external research. Developing a great name is hard; evaluating it doesn’t have to be.
Jonathan Paisner is brand director of CoreBrand, a New York-based branding consultancy.
Other articles by Jonathan Paisner:
Marketing in a Vending-Machine World
Internal Branding: Six Keys to Success
Network
