Imagine looking at a plate filled with bananas, oranges, and apples. Now imagine adding something to that plate.

Got your thing? Good.

When I ask others (mostly marketers and designers) how they would approach naming they typically hit the competitive research angle as their primary inspiration. And this research does help - but not for the reasons that most people think. Competitive research for inspirational purposes leads to names similar to what already exists in the market. Or at least that's what it most naturally leads to.

Back to the thing you were going to add...

Most of you probably picked a fruit. Perhaps a few of you picked a vegetable. Maybe even a couple got really creative and suggested a blender or fruitflies. Or perhaps even an object that has nothing to do with anything here.

But I'm guessing that all of you named an object and none of you added things like:

• Quantum Physics
• The National Debt
• That To-do list my wife gave me this morning
• The entire cast of My Three Sons (living or dead.)

I'm not saying that any of the things that you (likely) didn't add are good. But the fact is that you didn't add them. They aren't in the universe you considered. This is why relying on your competitor's names can be a dangerious trap.

By limiting yourself to what you can see in your immediate industry (and can easily relate to what you do) you limit your options for how you describe your business. You're either naming to be like or unlike your peers.

So how can you avoid this trap? Well - I don't actually have that answer for you. But I do have it for me.

I do this by forcing my mind to jump the tracks. That may mean trolling YouTube for a video that shows something funny or creative. It might be sitting down with a thesaurus and randomly linking words until I am presented with an entirely new concept. Or it may be just releasing my mind to the wondrous possibilities presented by attention deficit disorder. My associate (Dana) has become adept at telling when this last method is used by me.

She calls it "seeing butterflies." I'm not entirely flattered... but it works.

Today's jumping the tracks episode was brought to you by YouTube.

Picture the following items (listed in random order):

• A foodprocessor
• Toothbrushes
• A shelf full of books
• A lamp
• A squeaky chew toy
• A cupboard full of glasses
• An electric eggbeater
• A metal tomato slicer
• A toilet bowl brush
• A bunch of lipsticks in varying colors
• A pair of ladies bedroom slippers
• A set of pet food dishes (with food and water in them)

Can you find the thing in common?

I'm guessing that you can't. (Yes, they're household object. No, that isn't the "in common" aspect worth notiing.) To find the answer just sit back, turn on your computer's volume, and enjoy ten minutes of inspiration. (It takes a minute or so to develop, but it is worth it!) And no, I still haven't figured out how to link up YouTube and Wordpress. It'll happen eventually, though.

Pure competitive research doesn't lead to great names - but competitive research turned on its ear, its head, or some other body part... that can lead to greatness. Find a way to get outside of the problem. Find a way to redefine the goal. Find a way to see the competitive names as a chance to ignore them, repurpose them, or make them pointless.

Find a way to turn your metaphorical blender into something musical. Do whatever works... but make sure you do find your way out. (It might not result in a great name - but it'll at least get your name a chance to get noticed.)

Tate Linden Managing Principal Stokefire Consulting Group 703-778-9925