For example, a marketing professor from Columbia’s Business School (Bernd Schmitt, Ph.D.) commented that “when a product is launched its name is only part of a multimillion-dollar marketing campaign that also involves advertising, research, and social media” (Colapinto, 2011, 41). And while this is certainly true, he goes on to argue that “the name is just a starting point for a brand. The most important branding decision is more about brand strategy, distribution channels – where are the customers you want to reach” (Colapinto). However, Dr. Schmitt is not emphasizing a key part of the brand naming process. If brand name creation is done correctly, the company and the team explicitly address brand strategy and target customers during the creation of the brand name. This makes it is possible to save a large amount of money down the road because the company didn’t complete each stage of the marketing process in a silo. The more companies collaborate and horizontally structure their teams, ideas, and organization during the brand naming process, the more integrated the overall strategy and the less work that has to be done later. These issues would already be addressed during the brand strategizing that took place when the name was created. (Read more about the silo problem in management)

And, although Mr. Colapinto does defend this perspective with examples like F. Scott Fitzgerald who originally wanted to call his iconic “The Great Gatsby” the “Trimalchio in West Egg,” it’s important to realize that the strengths of a well thought out name go far beyond simple consonance and alliteration (although these can be important components). A branding strategy really should be derived and agreed upon during brand name construction. A name essentially embodies aspects of the strategy – while many people might not think much more beyond the brand name, names tend to appeal or repel them on a subconscious level.

Finally, we would argue that brand naming is a dangerous dance between creativity and efficiency. We are big believers in “out there” ideas and some of the great brainstorms that can stem from them. But trademark screening and brand name architecture design tend to be the more challenging and no less important parts of the process, especially when talking about global brands. Our team is more well-rounded because of the requirement to factor in the practical realities of IP protection and the need for global, cultural, and linguistic acceptability. While team members are creative, artsy, and right-brained, they also are grounded in the necessity of developing brand names that are legally available and resonate with different targets around the world. If managed properly, recognizing these constraints can actually sharpen rather than dampen our creative focus, reinvigorating us all and resulting in some truly amazing new name ideas that work in concert with a cohesive brand strategy and pass all legal and linguistic hurdles.

The Naru (Naming Guru) has emerged from the naming reflecting pool to finish sharing his/her branding perspectives from earlier this month.

5b.) Literal / descriptive names are better than emotional names when developing specific product names underneath a family brand.

While emotional, short & snappy brand names should establish strong connections with consumers (e.g., Northface, Nike), too many names of this ilk in one’s brand name portfolio tend to dilute brand building efforts. This type of name works well to establish a new product family’s tone and the brand’s “ambiance.” However, when a family brand  adds additional products and line extension names, it is more effective to stay simple and use literal or descriptive names. At this point, it becomes more about communicating what the additional products are and their key benefits to better establish the family brand, than it is to risk creating potential confusion by launching more brand-like names within the family.

6) There is no such thing as a perfect name.

William Shakespeare has an excellent quote that reads, “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.” If we can get past the old English, it’s the “perfect” reference to modern naming. At NameStormers, there is a policy to work with a customer until that customer is happy and it has served us well, resulting in over 80% of our business in recent years coming from repeat customers. Sometimes, it’s well worth the extra effort to really flesh out all the possible creative and viable name options, but not necessarily to find that one name that everyone loves. Striving to find that one unobtainable “perfect” name often ends up diverting the creative effort towards name candidates that no one hates but that no one is really passionate about either. Far better to end up with a name a few are passionate about initially, and that has the potential to excite others when the right window dressing is wrapped around it (a logo, copy and/or advertising), than push a mediocre name that will more than likely produce lackluster customer response.

7) Names with the greatest potential often have the most glaring weaknesses.

This really ties back to the memorability point from last week. Names that are risky often tend to be memorable. Take Google, Starbucks or even the Coppertone QuickCover name. Perhaps, from the Quick Cover name alone, you don’t immediately understand that Coppertone is releasing a new type of sunscreen spray that goes on faster and with less mess than their standard lotion. Many of Coppertone’s consumers tend to be families, and some of the company’s messaging targets mothers of young children. What if a mom was to look at the name “QuickCover” and think, “I don’t want something that is quick, I want something that is strong, protective, and powerful.” Or, “This lotion is going on my 1-year-old who has sensitive skin. Is the spray going to irritate his skin or not afford adequate screening, even though it is fast and convenient?” In reality, “QuickCover,” without the proper context,  could alienate some consumers; however, the name does telegraph a key benefit many might find compelling and memorable. Coppertone also mediated the risk associated with the name through their packaging – including the “Lotion Spray” trailer and the SPF 50 label right after the “QuickCover” name. It reassured those mothers who may have been more reluctant to try it while still conveying the new point of differentiation: that this line extension allows you to “quickly cover” your child. While names that seem too focused on a specific benefit or single emotion might raise concerns during the selection process, they often stand to have the greatest pay-off. With the aid of the right “window dressing” and context, names with a glaring weakness  often become less risky while still being sticky and memorable.

More to come during the next pondering from the Naru.

Click here to read Part I of this installment (this is Part II).

“Consumers are buying private label food and drink products in greater numbers, typically because these products represent better value” (Mintel, The Private Label Food and Drink Consumer, Dec. 2010). But, is this causation or correlation? Are consumers knowingly buying private labels in larger quantities because of their perceived value, or is something else driving the increase?

This same Mintel study identifies several private label names (e.g., Target’s Archer Farms and Dominick’s/Safeway’s Lucerne) where more consumers believe they are actually buying a national brand  than a private label.

While part of this perception is certainly due to clever packaging and well-crafted brand-building strategies, we believe that some of the credit clearly goes to the name. Take for instance two other names that are quickly identified as private labels among almost all consumers: Walmart’s Great Value and Supervalu’s Shop ’n Save. Are any of us really surprised at this? Is there any doubt that a name like Archer Farms just inherently has more national brand potential than a name like Great Value?

But what is also interesting is this takeaway from the Mintel study: “most consumers do not perceive a clear difference between the quality of branded products and those sold under a retailer’s private label” (Mintel, Dec. 2010). This same conclusion has been reported in the press and other studies, with seemingly increasing frequency in recent years. Some herald this as foreshadowing the inevitable demise of national brands. Yet others point to the premium prices, incredible customer loyalty and high margins that certain brands continue to command today (e.g. Apple, REI, Ferrari & Tiffany’s).

So what does all of this mean?  It may mean that national brands have not just an opportunity but an absolute obligation to better differentiate themselves from private label competition. The competition is becoming savvier with respect to brand-building and much better at developing private label names that rival the best national brand names out there.

We do both. We help retailers of all sizes develop strong private label names with the potential to usurp the incumbent national brand’s dominance.  We also help small to large manufacturers and service providers, in both the B2C and B2B arenas, create new brand names that engage, connect emotionally, differentiate and build strong loyalty and preference in a market.  Let us do the same for you.

We recently helped develop the CorFire™ name and a corresponding naming architecture for SK C&C. Here is a little background:

The CorFire solution suite lets retailers, phone companies and others deliver mobile commerce to their customers, today. The CorFire team has over eight years of real world experience providing systems that seamlessly serve half a million consumers in all aspects of mCommerce.  While others are talking about trials, CorFire is talking about implementation, right now, with a complete family of proven, reliable solutions.

The “Cor” in CorFire comes from the Latin for “heart,” as in the central, indispensible, essential elements of a mobile commerce infrastructure. CorFire provides solid, strong, enduring and robust solutions.

The “Fire” in CorFire is about ignition, about launching an industry that will change the way we all live. “Fire” is also about action and power, about helping companies rapidly deploy their all-encompassing mobile commerce solutions. The CoreFire team empowers customers to get to market quicker, with a more comprehensive solution, ahead of their competition. Retailers, banks, credit card companies and others will capture market share now and establish themselves with first-mover advantage.

CorFire is cool and edgy, not stodgy or old-school.  It is about proven solutions, not prototypes or trials.  CoreFire is fun, agile, exciting, fast-moving, responsive and energizing.

Join CorFire and give your customers a ride they will never forget.

Live Life Mobile!

We believe a name like CorFire will give SK C&C  an extra edge when marketing their products and services. Almost all of our clients have found that spending a little time and money upfront on a new name and naming architecture gives rise to well thought out, powerful brands that help telegraph their company’s compelling differentiators.

The Harvard Business Review published an article this month discussing two possible approaches when naming next generation products: 1. Brand-Name Continuation (or) 2. Brand Name Change.

Callaway Company launched its first Big Bertha driver in 1995 and then chose the brand-name continuation strategy: following with Great Big Bertha and then Biggest Big Bertha. This may be a cute and clever progression, but are there any downsides to this strategy?

Before answering that question note that many other companies like Nintendo followed the other approach, brand name change. In Nintendo’s case, they’ve launched the, N64, GameCube, and Wii gaming platforms. This approach involved a complete divorce from the previous name characterizing the product line. The obvious question is which one of these strategies is best?

This brings us back to managing expectations: taking into account your specific competitive environment and the evolutionary versus revolutionary nature of your next generation offerings.  Managing expectations also needs to take into account your budget or, as is too often the case these days, your almost total lack thereof.

When consumers see brand-name continuation (Callaway), studies have proven they often expect more evolutionary improvements to existing product features. When they see brand-name change (Nintendo), they expect fundamentally new features, more radical changes and too often perhaps, “they perceive the product as riskier (likelier to fail or more prone to compatibility problems with previous products)” (The Best Way to Name Your Product, HBR, 2011). That being said, brand-name change products are also viewed as being potentially more rewarding – better quality, more significant improvements and easier or more effective in use.

Of course, if you have almost no budget to launch the new offering, even one that is a radical step forward, the brand-name continuation strategy is usually the default. It almost always takes more money and more time to launch a totally new brand than leverage an existing one … Or does it?

This again brings up managing expectations. There are relatively inexpensive and expedient ways to launch a totally new brand name. But they only work well if the new name itself works well.  That is, it needs to engage emotionally, grab one’s attention on that first exposure and clearly differentiate from the competitive set.

We’ll share with you in future posts some of the techniques we’ve developed over the last 25 years in the naming business that have achieved this for many of our clients.  The two strategies listed here for generational products are effective, but oftentimes there are creative hybrids that may hit the mark depending on budget and specific company/project flexibility. If you have an immediate need, feel free to contact us directly for more information right now: 512.267.1814, info@namestormers.com.

This bolsters the case for building strong brands. Take organic products or products with a vested green interest for example.

Many green products have negative connotations with consumers because the product category is so saturated that consumers can’t distinguish between which products are truly environmentally-friendly and which are not. I tend to be a consumer who tries to actively buy eco-friendly products and support local business, but…surprise! According to a Brandweek article from August 2010, glass actually requires up to nine times as much fossil fuel to transport and takes up to 14 times the amount of space in landfills. Additionally, only about 28% of glass actually gets recycled. Organic products delivered in thin, plastic containers that don’t contain Bisphenol A (which is suspected of impeding infant brain development) are arguably more environmentally-friendly. Consumer misconception one.

Additionally, anytime I forget to take reusable cloth bags with me to the grocery store, I always request paper. My mentality being – paper bags are biodegradable, plastic ones are not. That being said – paper bag creation flattens millions of acres of forests and uses a significant amount of energy and chemicals. Forgotten side effect two.

Popular messages matter. Even false public perceptions can shape a market, or at the very least shape purchasing patterns within it. Seventh Generation’s (the developer of mainstream, eco-friendly cleaning products) co-founder and chairman perpetuates a third misnomer, “Consumers have come to believe that local is always better, but increasing research shows that, in many cases, [it’s not better] because of the energy inefficiencies involved in transporting local food.” I don’t agree with that – how is it less efficient to transport something from 5 miles versus 5,000 miles away?

For consumers, the point is to consider all of these messages in the context of who says them. For marketers, the point is to be forthcoming or risk alienating your target market. Of course a company selling organic baby food in plastic bags is going to “poo poo” glass containers. Obviously, there is a downside to biodegradable paper bags – the trees it takes to make them. Which shortcoming outweighs the other – the plastic bags filling up landfills or replantable trees? Finally, of course Seventh Generation is going to say that local markets are inefficient– those are their competition! The point is, brand messaging matters. From a marketing perspective, it’s the most legitimate way to inform the public about your product or service. From a consumer perspective, take a company’s branding with a grain of salt – it’s going to be biased. The takeaway…?

The brand naming moral: be who you say you are and select a name that authentically conveys that or the benefit you really do deliver. Customers respect authenticity in a brand name, and as Erik Drake, VP of Marketing for Stonyfield farms said “the easiest message is not always the right product.”

Why does every brand seek the role of the “popular kid?” Is it because the popular brands attract the most interest and consumers? Like the popular clique in high school, they drive the gossip and news that everyone actually wants to discuss.

However, this seems counter to general brand strategy – much less good parenting. Good names are sticky and standout. They might make people laugh, think differently about a service or product, and generally be memorable. They aren’t always pretty. They are oftentimes quirky, eccentric, and creative. Therefore, why do many brand strategies focus on the popular kid idea?

David Cameron recently wrote about the difference between a name and a brand (Branding Isn’t As Important As ‘Experts’ Say?). He described a name as generally empty-bucket – there are good attributes it can have, but the best name in the world won’t make a poor brand or product successful. A brand is kind of like a name’s street cred. You can work hard to shape it, mold it, but how well you resonate with your target audience, and the size of that audience, will ultimately impact the strength of your brand. So, while the name undeniably plays a roll, how do you gain good street cred and why does this oftentimes take the shape of trying to be popular?

Fortunately, there is actually a big difference between popularity stereotypes in high school and successful branding in business. Despite the fact that many companies seem like they will do anything to be associated with the “cool brands,” the marketplace is wonderfully voracious at sniffing out impostors. Disingenuousness is balked at – unlike the popular kids in high school, who according to Psychology Today are also the most effective liars, deceit and falsehoods are punished in the marketplace.

There are countless examples of brands which either intentionally or unintentionally have tried to be something that they just aren’t. In 1953, Ford Motor released the Edsel, a car promised to be unlike anything consumers had seen before. It was a marketing and sales disaster (amounting to a $350 million loss): what consumers got was a car that was just like all the rest, except uglier. It couldn’t live up to the hype. More currently, brands like Diesel Jeans have taken raunchy and borderline approaches to brand building. Unfortunately, while shock and awe may capture some attention, this is not a sustainable branding strategy. Quickly, it becomes overdone, or as is the case with Diesel, it fails to resonate with their target market (the whole point of any advertising campaign). Other companies like GE and Xerox have tried to sell computers over the years, but are simply unsuccessful because they deviate too far from their core competencies, their business offerings, and their brand scope and focus.

So, if trying to be something you aren’t ruins your street cred, how do you strengthen it? Starting with a memorable name that you can position well is a serious leg-up. Sustaining that edge amounts to reliably and consistently putting your company’s true colors out for display. Social Media Examiner recently published an article about 21 Ways Non-Profits Can Leverage Social Media. There are two overarching ideas from the article that could significantly impact for-profits’ branding strategy. First, a brand should really tell a story. People identify with stories they can relate to, stories are more memorable when there are characters and roles we can recount to one another, and finally throughout history humans have used stories as one of the predominant methods of communicating. If your brand communicates or at least supports its story through just its name, that leads to intuitively strong street cred.

The second idea was to create an intentional community. Social Media is the perfect tool for customers to feel like they can really get the inside scoop about a company. They can interact with real people and develop relationships, and that often proves to be a significant competitive advantage. Nine times out of ten people will choose to be loyal to those they have personal relationships with – if you’ve ever seen the reality television show Bachelor Pad, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Despite the raunchiness and selfishness pervasive on the show, like most reality television shows, there is a progression of advancement where members vote other people off, make packs, and build loyalties. None of that is new. What is fascinating is that in the final rounds, when push comes to shove and contestants have to choose between people they have business relationships and “packs” with and those they had romantic relationships with, not one person was loyal to their business relationship or “pack.” Personal relationships always trumped business ones, and that is a testament to the emphasis businesses should put on maintaining them.

So, the good news is that strong brand strategies should put no more emphasis on being part of the “popular clique” than high school kids should. Being authentic, consistent, and forming strong relationships is simply the foolproof method to breeding successful brands.

The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy (NCCSP) faced this type of challenge. As a non-profit organization out of Ashland, Oregon, it already had a presence in natural resource policy making in Washington, D.C., but was known primarily for its northwest focus. Its “alphabet-soup” NCCSP moniker also didn’t help in a city where faceless acronyms were the norm. NCCSP needed a strong, distinctive identity that would help them command attention as they spanned the nation and ultimately the globe.

After several rounds of creative, GEOS was selected as the new name. It was short and punchy and came from the Greek word for “earth” which connected nicely to the NCCSP’s expanded mission. It was simple to spell, easily remembered, and conveyed a sense of gravitas and seriousness that fit the organization’s “solid science” reputation. Additionally, it was the antithesis of a regional name – by default the “earth” affects everyone no matter where they may live.

The GEOS Institute will continue to expand its influence on policy making in Washington, D.C. under its new moniker. Its stature and mission will be easier to articulate to advocacy groups and politicians because of its new name. GEOS stepped outside the comfort zone for scientifically-oriented organization branding with a short, snappy identity that ties back to its mission, its science and its passion.

Many of you may find yourselves constantly fighting to grab top of mind awareness and preference for your key brand names.  One tactic that will help insure victory is to thoroughly analyze your competitors’ names, nomenclature system and naming architecture.  Competitive brand name research can address issues like:

• Which names are driving the most traffic to each of your competitor’s web sites?
• How are competitors employing different naming strategies like master brands, endorser brands and blue granules?
• Where has “category creep” created inconsistencies between trademark rights and actual usage?
• How well are your brand names performing compared to your competitors on key metrics like memorability, positive purchase intent, differentiation and engagement?
• Where are the weaknesses in each competitor’s naming architecture and how can you leverage your brand portfolio to take advantage of the resulting opportunities?

For answers to these and many other related question, please contact Mike Carr at 512-267-1814.