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).

One of the special educational services NameStormers offers is access to the sage naming philosophies of the revered Naru (Naming Guru). (The identity of the Naru is protected so he/she can go about day-to-day life without being chased down the street by marketers and branding strategists demanding one-on-one audiences.)

1) Think like a customer, not like a product developer. (Would you have ever named a computer “Apple,” a shoe “Nike,” or a coffee “Starbucks”?)

Customers need to connect with a name, often on an emotional level, in order to connect with a brand. There are no “how to’s” for forcing customers to identify with a name, just like there is no formula to find people you like and who will like you in return – it’s just a mutual “feeling.” Customer-centrism is often better described as a team ideology to really get inside customers’ shoes. Asking questions like, what do I (the customer) really need? What would make my life easier? What problem can this product solve that I don’t even realize I face? While this may sound more intangible than actionable, Corporate Culture and Performance (as cited on Thinking Like a Customer) credits customer-centric organizations with a 36% higher ROI (return on investment) than their industries’ mean performance. As for naming strategy, start with how you would describe your target market. If they’re a younger, funkier group, focus on names that resonate with that demographic.

2) Memorability, not likability, is what it is all about.

If, when testing a group of names, one name consistently ranks as “liked most” many people would consider that a strong, favorable indicator. Likability is NOT the end all be all. What good is a name that is well-liked if no one can remember it? Presently, in the day of Facebook and other powerful social networking tools, if you forget the name of that one person you really wanted to follow-up with, chances are you can remember enough about them to find their contact information on Facebook without too much trouble. Products and services do not always have the luxury of context clues. Memorability is the one measure that always counts with customers. If they can’t remember the name of a product, the chances of them effectively telling others about it, much less coming back to get it for themselves, is slim to none. (Check out what Mike Carr, NameStormer’s CEO, says to the American Marketing Association (AMA) in June 2009 on memorability.)

3) Passion from a few is more important than consensus from all.

We all have experience with customer reviews – the people who post them either seem to love the products/services they review or hate them. Just like in life, not every person who sees your name is going to love it. That’s okay. As a matter of fact, it’s better that way. Chances are, you’re polarizing those who fall nowhere inside your consumer segment. As long as the name resonates with that segment, and leads to people who post at least once a day about how much they love everything about that product and name, then the name is doing exactly what it was designed to do – attract customers.

4) Controversial names are better than safe names.

This really ties back to memorability. Names that turn heads, drop jaws, make statements, and/or lead to scathing commentary on that one obscure blog that hasn’t praised anything in 10 years, are okay. Controversial names make waves, create buzz, and do a lot of work for you with little to no support from marketing dollars. While these sorts-of names do have inherent advantages, we don’t necessarily advocate creating a name that is divisive just for the sake of creating contention. Controversy doesn’t have to be the focus, but it also doesn’t have to be a reason to drop a name either.

5) Emotional names are better than literal / descriptive names when developing a new brand.  The reverse is true when developing specific product names underneath a family brand.

Think about politicians. As much as they rely on area-experts, and call academicians to share their quantitative research so they can know, unemotionally, through numbers exactly what they should and should not vote for, that is rarely what they use to decide how to vote. Talking to many academicians at one of the top-tier research universities in the United States, they recount that politicians think they want empirical research to tell them what to do and how to craft policy, but time and time again, they vote and create this policy based on pure emotion. Doctorates from vastly different disciplines recount how much more effective a personal story filled with emotion and angst was at swaying politicians’ votes than the most compelling research they had seen presented. Naming for a new brand is largely the same. It’s much easier to connect with customers through their heart strings than through their cerebellum – emotionally evocative names are typically much more effective for new brands.

The Naru is off to meditate, reflect, and gain additional insight. Stay tuned for the Naru’s next installment.

“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.

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.”

Baby names

Never having gone through the birthing process myself, other than when I cried myself into the world as my parents’ pride and joy, I still appreciate the excitement, thought, and detail that goes into baby names. Do you want your kid to be a Thor or a Nathaniel? Despite the fact that I’m sure there are quite a few Nathanials who wind up being Thors (and vice-versa), parents tend to see names for future children as their futures themselves. I want my little girl to be wise (Sage, Mackenzie), or I want my son to be strong (Aaron, Emery).

However, that tends to be a little different from how products and services are named. Typically, positive and descriptive attributes are combined to create a name that evokes positive emotions and/or conjures up some image of the product or service. iPhone – my phone. Juicy Fruit – taste of the gum. Quaker Oats – historical context and description. Typically, we don’t go around naming our kids things like Marlboro or PepsiCo.

However, in China, they do. Take the current Chinese president, Hu Jintao, for an example – as explained in Branding Strategy Insider.

“’Hu’ is his family name, but his first name ‘Jintao’ “is the combination of two characters, Jin and Tao. Jin is ‘brocade’ or ‘bright and beautiful.’ Tao is ‘big waves.’ By putting them together, Jin-tao means ‘enchanting waves’ or, metaphorically, ‘splendid success’ since brocade is associated with richness and success and big waves are strong and unstoppable.”

What’s interesting about the way they create baby names in China, is that it mirrors the exact same way one should create company or product names. The process goes even deeper. More than just actual translation (a name changed to retain its meaning) comes transliteration (a name chosen primarily based on a meaning derived from its sound).

A good way to understand this process is to consider how Chinese usually try to remember an English name – by converting the sound into Chinese equivalents. With transliteration, the goal is to “create a Chinese name that sounds closest to the original name and has positive associations.” Examples of this are fascinating. Hui-Pu is Hewlett-Packard’s Chinese brand name because it not only sounds like “Hewlett-Packard,” but Hui is “kindness” and Pu “universal,” so Hui-Pu can mean “benefit to all.” All of the sudden naming has a whole new dimension.

GroupOn

GroupOn is a new company that just came on the scene 2 years ago. I remember when GroupOn was only in 5 cities in the States, just 1.5 years ago, when I thought I was an early-adopter! Now, in addition to turning down multimillion dollar deals from Google and Yahoo, they have expanded to 35 countries in just the last year.

A question relevant to this discussion that has always come to mind when I hear about their dizzying growth and acquisition strategy, is how does the name GroupOn work in Russia, Europe, and Asia? One of the most attractive things about it in English is that it’s a play off of “coupon” that brings to mind “coupons” as in a whole “bunch.” How does the name play overseas and does that matter?

To facilitate their burgeoning growth, Groupon has done something perhaps smart initially, although potentially very challenging down-the-line. They have acquired local companies, allowing them all to retain their local identities. Their European service is MyCityDeal. They’ve taken the same approach in each new locale. In South America the service is ClanDescuento, in Japan Qpod.jp, and in Russia Darberry.ru. Clearly, they’re using the same CMS, web design, everything. They’ve standardized except on the name – which is odd, given the intentional local feel of their daily deals. This divorce might impact their relationship with their clientele.  If they are willing to tailor their brand name, why not also their web site, messaging, etc.?

Embrace or circumvent?

So, is it worth the headache of exploring new languages, cultures, and identities as you expand, or should you just circumvent the whole challenge via acquisition or a similar parent-brand/sub-brand strategy?

Honestly, one brand name (or derivations of it) that means one thing across languages and cultures is far simpler to communicate than a host of brands, even if they live under one parent brand. The thing about brand naming is that memorability is key. It’s easy to get from Hui-Pu to HP. It’s not very easy to tie a MyCityDeal or ClanDescuento back to GroupOn.

Building a strong brand seems paramount. Do you want to spend more money educating your market on your different brands and their relationships, or would you rather spend a little more time and money up front and have a strong, memorable, and meaningful brand name that works across multiple countries and cultures? We certainly advocate the single brand name strategy, as it more effectively leverages your brand building dollars and is simpler to execute and manage over time.

This refrain repeats in household arguments frequently. I feel qualified in making this observation, as I’m the woman in my household, and have had to bite my lip several times to circumvent this particular script. Typically, I’m not a fan of making generalizations about the genders, but this one I have actually witnessed with countless couples, multiple times. What is it about what women presume they communicate that men just totally miss?

Believe it or not, this has some interesting implications for brand naming. Every time we think of a name or try and articulate a brand, we’re trying to tell a complex story in just one or two words. Oftentimes, the most-liked names are those that convey multiple meanings, whether they be double-entendres (i.e. BitterEnd Beer) or names that just resonate with people on different levels (i.e. “Brita” Water sounds like crisp water to some, has a deep mythological meaning regarding inner purification to others (check out the description on their website), sounds more sweet and nurturing to still others, etc.). So, all this thought and context that we put into these names and enrich these brands with, does it work?

I’d argue yes, but others may disagree. Take Seattle’s Best coffee for example. They have just released a new level system, “rebranding” their coffee – “rebranding” because none of these coffee flavors have names, just numbers. The levels go one through five: one being the weakest in flavor, five the strongest. The confusion, as Brandweek’s article points out, is that some people will “presume that the numbers correspond to the actual level of kick.” The irony with coffee is that frequently darker blends (or level 5’s) often have less caffeine than the lighter blends (level 1’s) because of the longer roast times associated with darker blends. Since most Americans drink coffee for the energy boost that comes with higher levels of caffeine, take the rising popularity of the espresso shot as an example, many might be misled by this new level system. Has dumbed-down branding really simplified communicating the right context and story or just complicated it?

I posit that while something stripped down and simple might be easy to understand, it’s not easy to remember. Most of us can understand the concept of a tree. But what makes that tree different from the one down the street, or the one in a different state, is ALL about context: this is a Giant Sequoia from northern California. That name and description are much more significant, visual, and memorable than the lone word, tree.

This brings about the answer to the question regarding perceived meaning behind brands and names: is it really worth it to go to all that effort to build unique identities for every product and service? Graphics.com has some really interesting insight about the role context plays in strictly visual communication of brands (or logos). It discusses that “brand essence exists only in the memory of people. The logo is the highly visible reminder.” Brand essence is inextricably tied to memorability. Additionally, a logo, exactly like a brand name, evokes associations in people, persuasions and biases, and a sign of recognition (much like a wave or a high five). Those are powerful tools all wielded by brand names. If a brand has an identity, something ownable and communicable, why not create the message, make it exciting, and give rise to what you envision? Do you want to be a tree or a Giant Sequoia from northern California?

As a woman, the psychology behind why I think I’ve communicated something when I clearly haven’t, I think will forever perplex me. But, I can certainly work on my communication skills. On the other hand, brand names only have to contend with the hurdles we put in front of them. Creating a clear path and sending the correct message isn’t a bad thing, it is a critical element that we focus on when developing new names for clients.  Consistency and  delivering the right message, in a compelling and differentiating way, is what good brand building and effective product naming is all about.

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.

Some branding pundits argue that “masterbranding” is where it is at today.  That is, instead of developing new names for your major new offerings, just extend your existing brand name and leverage all of those brand building dollars that you have invested over the years.

While the masterbrand strategy has increased in popularity, it is certainly not a cure-all and often creates more problems than it solves.  Why you ask?  Because it ignores one of the fundamental laws of brand naming: “the strength of your brand name is inversely proportional to its scope.” Or said another way, the wider variety of  stuff you plaster your brand name on, the more you dilute it, the less control you have over it and the less clarity and focus it has in the marketplace.

But instead of taking you through examples of masterbrand strategies that are ridiculous (and there are countless examples), let’s talk about a company that got it right with a rifle-shot, focused brand name. Cerqa, a division of Nationwide Graphics, needed a name for a new web-based printing business they were launching.  Instead of trying to extend Cerqa or Nationwide Graphics, they decided they needed something that directly supported their core brand proposition. And they were able to coalesce that brand proposition down to one word: “simplicity.”  That is, they wanted to offer the simplest, most convenient way to get all kinds of things printed … quickly and easily, without the many hassles traditionally associated with print jobs.

We met with some of their key team members in their offices and, after a couple rounds of creative, helped them select a name and tagline … “Snapio: Printing Made Easy.”  The Snapio name was short and punchy, directly related to simplicity and convenience, and when coupled with our tagline suggestion, directly conveyed the essence of their brand.  We also owned the dot-com and transferred it to them at no additional fee.  So, for a total cost of less than $12,000, they ended up with a name, tag line and ready made dot-com.  To see how they are doing today, go take a peek at their website: www.snapio.com and ask yourself, would they have been better off implementing a masterbrand strategy by extending Cerqa or Nationwide Graphics, or do you think: “Snapio … Printing Made Easy” might serve them better?