Recently in Bad
Can an old chemical term provide insight into the world of taglines and branding? Tune in and find out!
I was going over some old college textbooks recently (mostly to see if I could finally find a way to part with them) and I came across a notation written by someone evidently smarter than myself in the margin. It said "BROMIDE!!!" ...and it had an arrow pointing to an underlined phrase... which was "That is neither here nor there." I remembered reading something about Bromides from my chemistry classes. The original meaning of bromide has something to do with a smelly element used in some printing methods. (Though I think it probably had the name before the printing method was devised...) Bromide also has another purpose - it is a sedative. While I evidently hadn't been interested enough to check this out when it might've helped my grades, I was moved to pull a dictionary to learn how this word was repurposed. Answer: Gelett Burgess used the word in a book published in 1906. The title? "Are You a Bromide?" (Full text of the book can be found here.) To badly summarize the author's point, he views Bromides as the stuff people say that really doesn't need to be said at all. By anyone. Ever. (Incidentally the phrases tend to be overly polite, optimistic, trite, and phony.) He provides examples:
There are things that people say that everyone can recite right alongside. It's a bit like if I walked into a room of first-graders and shouted "Hickory Dickory Dock!" Assuming that they're too young to have listened to Andrew Dice Clay the majority of them would answer my call with something about climbing rodents and timepieces. Bromides aren't worth saying because... well... to use the power of a Bromide... they go without saying. Or to alter the intent a bit... they are better left unsaid. So, how does this all relate to a branding and naming blog post? While it is possible to achieve success using Bromides or even by being a Bromide (just look at IBM - who became their own metaphor that no one ever got fired for using...) it does take a lot more effort. And money. Lots more money. Consider my old nemesis tagline - "Making Your Dreams A..." What's the next word? Is it "Mess?" How about "Nice Set of Felted Slippers?" No, likely it is neither of those things. Making Your Dreams A Reality is perhaps the most trite of all slogans and is one I'd place firmly in the Bromide category. Want to become world famous with that tagline? You're looking at spending tens of millions of dollars - likely more - to get any notice at all. A few Bromide Taglines for you to consider:
I can see that having a predictable tagline might be seen as a positive since it would mean people would always be able to recall your brand - but the predictability comes at a cost. If it is predictable then chances are good the tagline is already attached to something else in the target's mind. Or more likely lots of other things. Worse, the predictability isn't one born out of any particular level of insight - it's a bit like a familiar tune or phrase spoken or sung in another language. We know it because we've heard it before - but when we say it ourselves we don't actually think about the meaning. As a recovering classical musician I am very familiar with this - I'd have to learn songs in Italian and French - two languages I don't know anything about. I can belt out some familiar tunes from The Marriage of Figaro, but I do it out of habit, not comprehension. I'm pretty sure I'm singing about sending some kid off to war and being broke, but the why's and how's aren't known to me. Shouldn't your tagline be more useful than a few noises that remind people of your brand without adding any value? (Especially when everyone else is using exactly the same noises?) C'mon folks. I'm sure y'all have a lot more examples of some popular Bromide taglines. Drop a comment and let's see 'em. (Who knows, maybe we can start a revolution against crappy branding. We can predictably guarantee that "the revolution will not be televised.") (...sorry.)
A few readers of the blog and even a couple clients have pointed out that I am prone to the occasional rant. (But they've also been kind enough to note that it is informed or at least well researched ranting.)
As noted on an earlier comment today, I rant for a reason. I question stuff I don't get. I challenge people to defend their brands. When it doesn't make sense to me I'll say so. I wouldn't call it ranting though, I'd suggest that I'm poking - and perhaps provoking. Why? I poke because I care. Naming is seen by many in marketing and branding as something you throw in for free when taking on a design project. And the work produced in these instances tends to be exactly the sort of stuff that gives the naming field (such as it is) a bad name. I make my living in an industry where almost every name is a potential Exxon Valdez for the field. When one of us messes up it affects all of us. And even if the product was given away for free it still drags us down (a free oil spill is still an oil spill.) I provoke because provocation gets read. And they get forwarded. And people respond to them. Naming has low visibility. If I poke at someone's brand for not making sense chances are excellent that if they're legitimate they're going to respond - perhaps by poking back, or by actually addressing the issues that I raise. If they don't respond then the bad brand stands exposed and identified as below the norm. Either way the industry gets more visibility, a high likelihood of some smart discussions, and more people passionate or informed about brands and names. I poke because I've got to be me. One of Stokefire's founding principles is that we're supposed to be who we are. (No sense putting on a costume to help other businesses try and be themselves - it gets too complex.) I'm a guy that believes all the cards should be on the table. When I screw up you'll know it. When I believe your brand can be improved I'll tell you. And when your brand is strong enough that you don't need my help (as happened last month with DARKSKY) you'll know that too. I poke because I believe. If I didn't believe that branding worked I wouldn't bother. But good branding does work. I'll point out branding companies that use the same technique for every project (much as Igor pokes Landor on occasion.) I'll poke names that say more about the gutsiness of the namer than they do about the brand they're supposed to represent. I'll rage against names that have such obvious issuses with them that they never should have left the concept stage. I'll express my astonishment at those who suggest what you're called and how you convey yourself to the market doesn't matter at all. I poke because it clarifies my thinking. Often I'll start writing and will change my opinion as I begin to think things through. Or it'll come when someone points out that I've been ignoring a critical aspect of an issue. But I had to put my thoughts on the page - in the virtual public - for it to happen. It helps me to figure out what's really at the center of an issue. And... it feels pretty damn good. Try it yourself. Find something in the branding world that doesn't make sense to you and just start poking at it. Try to figure out what the creator of the brand was thinking - or not thinking. What was the goal of the name, tagline, or brand campaign? Pretty soon you'll start seeing all brands that way. And all those compulsions that branders everywhere are trying to force into your head will suddenly not be so compelling. [Ed. "BUY STOKEFIRE?"]
I actually happen to like the AMA quite a lot... So it is with a bit of sadness and angst that I question the addition of what appears to be a new feature in the Marketing News magazine. In September the acronym was "USP." They give us a friendly hint that it doesn't have anything to do with the Postal Service. And then they tell us that it means "unique selling proposition" and go on to explain what that means. If you know marketing you know what USP means - and if you don't you probably won't be reading a magazine only given to AMA members...
This month the acronym is SaaS - standing for "Software as a Service" which the folks at the AMA seem to think "effectively renders the terms ASP (application service provider) and on-demand obsolete." A few points: One - ASP deserves to be rendered obsolete. Why go to the trouble of making an acronym that means something and is pronouncable and then ignore both the meaning and obvious pronunciation? I see the letters A, S, and P and I say "asp." One syllable. Neat. Maybe a little scary. Why make it three? Weren't acronyms meant too save us effort? Two - There's no way SaaS will make ASP obsolete. SaaS is almost impossible to type correctly on the first try. Most word processors automatically switch the last letter to lower case. Mine did so, then suggested that what I really wanted to say was Seas, Sagas, Saabs, Sass, or Salas. At least ASP doesn't violate any word processing standards that I can think of. Three - How would you pronounce SaaS? Does the last letter give it emphasis? Does a double A give it a long vowel sound? It could be "Sass" or "Sayce" or "Says" or "Sayz" or "SaySUH" or something else. Four - If SaaS is the acronym of the month then why isn't it found anywhere on AMA's website? There's more, but I've got proposals to write and clients to serve. This all begs a single question for me. Why would an organization teaching about marketing suggest any acronym as being "of the month"? Acronyms are shortcuts. Acronyms eliminate the message. Acronyms take the oomph out of marketing. Acronyms cost more money in the long run... When was the last time you thought to yourself... THAT is one beautiful acronym? (FCUK excepting...) P.S. - I do know that the feature is meant to be educational... but if that's the case then why suggest that the acronym is good? Ah well. Perhaps I'm just grouchy today.
We've named a whopping two whole companies in the "sustainable" or "green" or "eco-friendly" or "tree-hugging" or "Gaia" or "Mother Earth" or whatever other catchword you want to use.
Two. And we still haven't used a cliche. (We wish we could have said "thirty-seven" or "a hundred twenty four"... but we've gotta start somewhere.) Both "green" brands we've helped to develop are fresh new concepts that convey what is at the core of each company without blending in to the crowded ecomarkets. emPivot is a green media firm that empowers its audience to change their views on issues involving sustainable living (tagline "View green from every angle.) webmeadow is a solar-powered technical development company. Both companies are led by charismatic leaders with great vision - and both work in crowded markets with all sorts of "me too" names. We've helped our clients step outside of the "green" label and establish identities that show there is an alternative to using camo in the masthead. ...and this gets down to what we believe is the role of the professional namer in business. Should a namer just give a client what they say they want? We're going to go out on a limb and say "no." Our job is not to give a client whatever they say they want - because often the client either doesn't know what they want or doesn't know what's possible. (Both emPivot and webmeadow had great ideas to begin with, but the ideas evolved as we went through the generation and evaluation process.) We've had a client say they want "A name like 'Flickr' - you know... with that cool short ending" and we didn't give it to them. We've had a client ask for a name with four letters - and they ended up selecting one with twelve, because it actually met the goals we discovered and developed together. There are quite literally thousands of people in the United States who are qualified to provide lists of names that satisfy exactly what a client says they want. There are hundreds that make a living doing almost exactly that. There are few, however, that help clients understand what identites can do for an organization, how to launch a brand, or what really matters when trying to decide between multiple strong naming ideas (or even a strong one and a weak one.) Our view is that as namers we are responsible for the words our clients choose. If our clients are set on an identity that is going to handicap them in the long run (or short run, for that matter) it's our job to tell them about that risk. If namers were only responsible for the generation of lists of names then namers would be no better than a talking thesaurus - and those already exist. If namers are only responsible for producing letters and sounds for clients to consider then I'd put up my own son, Theodore, as a perfect (if high maintenance) source. (He's particularly talented at words with gargles and raspberries in them - and he'll give you near-infinite variations.) Here it is, folks. Namers don't just make lists. Everyone can do that. If you make lists please don't tell us that your names are more creative, different, or better. Since all you're providing is a bunch of concepts without any guidance or evaluation you can't make any claim other than the number of ideas you provide. While quantity is important during the creative process, quantity is your enemy during the evaluation and implementation phases. Here's the gauntlet: If you're a namer that deals in lists without context (e.g., no evaluation, implementation help, or detailed guidance) we're saying you're not a namer. You're closer to all the people my wife and I tried to ignore when we were getting ready to name Theodore. Even the great man we named him after gave us lists to consider (and oddly enough he didn't put his own name on the list.) So... name listers aren't namers.* Anyone want to pick up the gauntlet and mess with us? Poke. Poke. (Hey, we're Stokefire, after all. We gotta find other uses for this poker.) (* - Note that we aren't afraid to use name listers ourselves on occasion. It's a critical part of the naming process - especially when a project gets a bit stuck - it's just not the whole thing.)
We've long stated that acronyms are one of the fastest ways to anonymize your company. We were this close to being proved wrong recently.
How did it almost happen? Apparently a town near Seattle (named South Lake Union) wanted to bring public transportation to town in the mode of a trolley. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, really... the South Lake Union Trolley is completely innocuous, right? Alas, the South Lake Union Trolley was not to be - even though folks started selling shirts to show their civic pride and publicizing the new service with "Ride the SLUT" emblazoned on 'em. How many other towns would gain a cult following for their public transit systems? Cool, no? One article did have an interesting quote right at the tail end, though... With the streetcar, said Don Clifton, a Cascade resident, "We learned how fun it is to change the name of things."Amen, brother. (Though it'd have been even more fun to leave it!)
I'm not sure how I missed this site amongst the clutter of naming sites on the internet. An intriguing concept - using a marketplace of sorts to sell names that someone has thought of and wants to sell. If you're a great namer then this just might work...
...but I think that great naming must be in the eye of the beholder because I'm not so sure that the names being sold are the sort of thing I'd advise my clients to buy - even if I was the one to invent the terms. Consider the following:
What really got our blood flowing this morning wasn't the quality of the names themselves... it was the use of the (r) after every single name listed. You see, you can't just slap an (r) on something and have it protected. Trademarks don't work that way. You've got to file for protection in specific classes and receive notifcation from the US government. NameSale has never done this for any of the listed names (that we can find.) They did file for protection on their own name - but that lapsed on July 7, 2005... meaning that the (r) after their own name isn't there legally either. It's a Monday so I've almost got enough ire to slap "NameSale" in my own website name just to prove a point. Sadly "The ThingNameSaler" looks absolutely horrific and makes no sense at all. It was a good idea though, no? Maybe I could sell ThingNameSaler.com(r) and make a fortune! What should the folks at NameSale have done? Well - if they wanted protection in the US they should've used (tm) or (sm.) Perhaps someone over in Sweden can search the PRV and tell us whether some of these were actually registered over yonder. We're guessing that since there's money involved in both filing and searching that neither was done for these names... Come on people! If you're going to play in the naming space at least come with your B game. (Actually, the names provided aren't bad ones... they're just not great names. It's obvious that many of the names in the list were rejected by clients of theirs and they're just trying to recycle them. They're just going about it a little backwards.) If you want to have more fun just check out The Wayback Machine.You can see how the list of names has evolved over the years. Interestingly enough, the Juventure name hasn't sold since late 2001. (But maybe this post will be the one to push it into the sold column!) Good luck in the sale of the domain NameSalers! We'll check up later in the year to see what's goin' on.
What would happen if Saddam's "Mother of All Wars" fell in love with Putin's "Father of All Bombs?"
"Mother of All" has become a trendy way of saying "best" or perhaps "will redefine the meaning of" (though the latter doesn't feel particularly prone to trendiness.) How does this relate to naming? Well, there's the obvious fact that both Saddam and Putin used these lofty words to refer to important things (okay, so they weren't really products, but they still needed names...) And there's the more relevant fact that "MoA" has been used thousands of times in products and services since it was coined. MoA appears to be more commonly used in commerce than FoA - at a ratio of about four or five to one. Of particular interest to me is the fact that (as far as I can tell) there are exactly zero products that use the phrase "Mother of All" in their names that have become wildly successful - other than the originally referenced war, of course. I predict that we'll see similar results from "Father of All" in the coming years. We may even see it become more popular than MoA for a while. But I'd be willing to wager that no product with FoA or MoA in its name will ever crack the top 100 spots on Amazon or any other reputable mass retailer. Could it have something to do with the fact that the terms are typically used tongue-in-cheek? Or that they're too closely linked to pop-culture and prone to becoming dated too quickly? Or is it that the logical impossibility of something becoming the mother or father of anything *after the thing is already born* is just too goofy to consider seriously? I'll leave you with this thought. How is it that "The Father of All Bombs" could be invented more than a half-century after the nuclear bomb (a much more powerful weapon) was dropped? It seems that the FoAB is more like the smaller, better behaved nephew of the atom bomb, doesn't it? But "The Nephew of All Bombs" just doesn't have much oomph... So much for truth in advertising....
(No, We Still Don't Like Acronyms.)
Why? Because except in rare instances they're forgettable, confusing, costly, and time intensive. ...among other things, of course. Forgettable because most acronyms (and initialisms) have no connection to the idea behind the letters. Confusing because if someone wants to get to know the organization or product behind the letters they've got to learn two different names - the abbreviated one and the long, drawn-out one. Additionally, the pronunciation of an acronym or an initialism is often not intuitive. Consider:
Costliness... Supporting two unique identities - the short and long version - takes money. It appears in the use of different names for internal and external documentation, or in different logo presentations, or in linear inches when writing job descriptions for publication in the paper, or - relating to the last issue listed - in time spent explaining what the acronym means. Time is a significant disincentive for the use of acronyms. If the goal is to do something productive with the hours in your day and your staff is forced to expalin the acronym every time they say it to someone new... aren't you losing a bit of money every time conversation is side-tracked? Yes, you could argue that the additional conversation is about your company so it's "all good" but wouldn't you rather have a conversation better targeted to what you want from the person you're talking to? If it takes 15 seconds to clarify your name each time you say it and you say your name to ten new people a day... that's 2.5 minutes a day or 12.5 minutes per week per staff member. Almost an hour a month of lost time multiplied across your entire sales staff. It seems to me that it is better to have the listener ask a question about what you can do for them or the value of your offerings intead of asking the most basic question (i.e. "Umm... what's that mean?") Acronyms have a way of making people feel stupid - they're the professional version of "AMonkeySaysWhat?" - forcing us to stop the speaker to clarify an issue that the speaker should've addressed or let the speaker go on as we focus on the fact that we have no clue what was just said. There's an old military prank that guys pull on new recruits - commenting that the hardest part of the job is cleaning up after all of the spent B-1RD (pronounced "Bee One Arr Dee") fuel in the hangar. It's a rare recruit that figures it out in the first couple days. Want a few more reasons? How about these:
Nope. Unless you're fortunate enough to be in Hammond, Indiana. Those guys are easy to find. Most of the other 1.8 million "ABC Towing" hits are for other companies in other cities and states - and are entirely unrelated to the guys in Hammond. Acronyms, plainly stated, are perhaps the fastest way to become permanently anonymous in business. That said, there are exceptions. One quick look at FCUK and you'll see there are ways to get attention. But (thankfully?) there can really be only one FCUK. However, I know without even looking that even this name has been copied. I'll give ten to one odds that FUKC and FCKU are both being marketed as copycat brands... (But that is a rant for another day.) Aww heck... I couldn't resist!
Looks like the DSCC has selected the four finalists to vote on. (See yesterday's post for context.)
They are:
Quick thoughts:
Really. Maybe if they started by telling us what the slogan was supposed to do for the party and the platform we could've produced something better... That of course would require the party to have someone who knew what the heck you could achieve with a slogan. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?
Unbe-infixing-lievable.
I just read on POPwink (a couple days too late) that the Dems are looking to come up with a new bumper sticker. I had no idea. You should read Michael's post over there, and I must agree that his judgement (that the ones they've come up with are "hideous") is spot on. The choices they've laid out for us are:
Is the left wing in such a state that they have to recycle old concepts? Two of the four are just reworking old slogans "No Child Left Behind" and "What Have You Done For Me Lately." One uses a visual key to link W (as in Bush) to Wing (as in right) but seems to ignore the fact that the left has a wing too. The last option seems to endorse doing whatever we did in '06... but somehow doing it better. None of them seem catchy. None of 'em seem smart. None of 'em speak to me (as one of the centrists that typically decide elections.) None of them take advantage of the location of the message (a bumper.) None of them are memorable (without having to recall either right wing rhetoric or bad pop songs.) These are conversation enders rather than conversation starters. But what if you could fix that? What if you had a phrase that sounded catchy, implied at least a bit of intellect, could speak to disaffected centrists, used language that mixed well with the bumper medium, and could be used by talking heads as a conversation starter? I think it's possible. Something like "The Right Turn Is Left" (tm)(sm)(c)(etc...) above a contextualizing message such as "Democrats for ___________" (where the blank is a platform cause) or "Vote Democtratic in '08" seems to fit the bill. It throws wordplay, logic, message, direction, context, mnemonics and all sorts of good stuff (like the fact that this is a "Googlenope" as I write this) at the reader without preaching about "W" or gloating about 2006... ...and you can almost hear people chanting it at the Democratic Convention if you listen hard enough. (Added bonus - the logical Republican response "The Right Turn is Right" or "The Left Turn Is Left" loses all of the power and wit that the use of the conflicting statement brings. It's a hard slogan to fight effectively.) Anyone else think there's a better option?
This is only loosely related to naming. And yet I find myself unable to stop myself from writing about it. Perhaps you can scream at me (like a banshee?) and I'll stop.
According to Web sources, a banshee is a wailing, weeping, screeching, or screaming harbinger of death. So why is the term coming up in business? Perhaps as a warning to those that make bad business decisions? Or because of the reference to Celtic mythology? Sadly, no. Mostly it's just because people don't know what the word means. There's "Grow Business Like A Banshee" from the American Chronicle - perhaps a reference to the fact that when you tell people they're going to die they're more apt to buy life insurance? Chet Holmes (CEO of Chet Holmes International) wrote the article without a single reference to the helpful screeching babes. Based on the article it seems, in fact, that the term "like a banshee" is actually a stand in for "people who can multiply by two." Who knew? There's someone going by the handle "daibebtates" on 43things that wants to "learn to type like a banshee." This is one guy I do *not* want to have in the cubicle next to me. Though not technically business related, there's a woman who met a guy who'd "want to kiss and make out like a banshee" but never went any further. I'm tellin' you... death can be such a turnoff. Makes sense to me that after shouting into a woman's mouth about morbid stuff I'd be in absolutely no mood for hanky panky. Only related to business when preceded by "doing my...", Kitty Foreman of "That 70s Show fame shouted "I have to pee like a banshee" as she rushed to the bathroom. We are left to wonder why we heard nothing from her once the door shut. Professors even fall victim to misuse - saying things like "This thing will be spinning like a banshee" as if it were a subclass of dervish. Or perhaps a brand of wooden top. The real cause for this post was something read to me by my wife (honest!) that came from O, The Oprah Magazine. The name of the piece was "Network like a banshee." Is it just me, or does everyone else also picture someone showing up, grabbing a beer, a snack wrapped in a greasy napkin, then turning to the crowd and shouting, HI EVERYONE! I'M TATE! YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!C'mon - with all Oprah's money you'd think she could hire editors that catch this stuff... At least Yamaha got the name/sound connection right. (Though the whole ATV as symbol of impending death is a little distasteful to me given the safety issues it has...) Lesson in naming:(?) Don't use a word just because it feels right. Make sure you spell it right and don't unintentionally choose a homonym or eggcorn that makes you look foolish or uneducated. The ear isn't always right...
I don't know about you, but when I need cheering up I don't have to go far. I'm not sure who is behind the "Bad Product Names" blog, but more often than not I am entertained when I read it. The most recent post - on an education firm - had me in stitches for quite a while.
The company describes itself thusly: Learnia's comprehensive solution includes integrating benchmark assessments to deliver a wide range of timely, actionable reports to meet the specific needs of every level of education professional. Learnia also provides valuable information on developing relevant instructional strategies and interventions, and a Client Services program that helps ensure success for you and your students....and already I'm feeling severe pain in my side just from reading this stuff. Learnia? Apparently the "learning power for the classroom" they provide does not include any lessons on rhyme. It is a great name, actually. It just wasn't used to its full potential. This one needs humor and gumption to pull off well... The name was developed by the team at Strategic Name Development - a firm whose work I very much respect. This one I'd love to hear a bit more about, however. Was it suggested in jest and the client liked it? Did you suggest that they use it with a dose of attitude and they didn't get the point? (Yeah... I know you can't really say... but I figured I'd ask just in case...)
We don't have the answer yet, but we're checkin' it out.
We've identified a few patterns and we're lookin' to see which one takes the cake as the all-out-overused champion of them all. We'll look to Seth Godin's list, TechCrunch, and a few other places to see what we find. Is it:
My peeve? I'm pickin' truncation. Flickr be damned. And I'll go out on a limb and pick truncation as the most common fault as well. C'mon folks - show that you care! We might not be able to stop the madness, but at least we can show we won't go quietly. Results of our back-of-the-napkin research to come next week.
A close friend recently confided in me that they read my blog, but really only find it interesting or entertaining on days that I'm "pissed off" about something. Typically I find a topic that irks me for some reason and it'll take me a good week or two to get the rant out of my system.
My rants are a bit like Columbo. Just when you think I'm all done I'll come back with "just one more thing..." Anyhow, my current issue is the fact that I can't figure out how some of my peers in the industry do their stuff. Last Friday's post seems to have been well received (though may have something to do with me buying tickets to Aruba for a few people) and I find that I'm unable to get myself off the same topic. Though this time it has a slightly different focus - we're back to people's names. There's a link on Maryanna's website (that's Maryanna Korwitts, not "Kowitts" as I'd printed last week) that allows you to get a first name report card for yourself. You can try it here. It's pretty cool. ...Except that it sucks for me. Sure, my reportcard says I'm a "Logical, Pioneering, Practical Individualist" but it also suggests that I'm not creative, I'm not sexy, I'm bad at relationships and I have trouble getting my ideas across. On the plus side, I'm somewhat healthy, and I'm gonna be pretty well off in the money and job department. (If I were a female I'd be pretty sick, so I had some good fortune there, too.) What really gets me, though is that according to Maryanna I share my "first name vibration" with Bob Dole. (And also Babe Ruth, Frankie Avalon, and Kate Jackson, but who cares about them?) Excuse me, but Tate Linden does not share anything with Bob Dole. Tate Linden wouldn't know where to find Bob Dole to share anything with him even if Tate Linden wanted to. Tate Linden is not, however, above making jokes at Bob Dole's expense. I know that no one is saying that a name guarantees a particular personality - but with the name "Tate" I just can't figure out where these ascribed qualities are coming from. I know there's a Tate George (baskeball player) and a Tate Donovan (actor) but few of us Tates have made much of a name for ourselves to establish a precedence. Most of what I've seen has shown that folks with 'my' name are pretty creative. Is it that we folks with the name don't know we're poorly endowed (namewise, of course) and thus aren't held back by our moniker's downside? Anyone have any idea why "Tate" isn't seen as an artisticly talented sex god who is like totally into monogomous committed relationships and can talk like Jon Stewart (though is much taller, of course)? What I wouldn't give to have a name like Ava - which is evidently a "potential winner!" (Along with Dyanah, Samara, Ericha, Kevan, Margery, Leigha, and dozens more. The thing they have in common for me? Aparently I have never met anyone who is a potential winner.) But what peeves me more than anything else is this: Deepak is sexier than I am. Oh, and my little son Theodore is completely hosed. Unless he goes by TJ, or Theo. (And no, Teddy and Ted aren't too good either.) Major apologies to both my wife and son. For different reasons.
This Post is PG-13. Youngsters please go about your business elsewhere.
Frequent readers will know that I really do try not to slam peers in the industry over their work. I will occasionally discuss slip-ups (and we've pointed to a few from Landor), negative stakeholder reactions (Weber Marketing Group has been exceedingly helpful in bringing an inside look at a difficult project,) and bad decisions made by consumers. I did once tear apart a firm in New York for putting together a video that was so awful I couldn't help but watch the catastrophe multiple times to be sure I absorbed all of its horribleness. After yesterday's post and numerous comments and emails on how strange Maryanna's business was, I was prompted to look into what else she has going. Lo, she's a corporate namer. ...With an online portfolio containing "just a few of the many names created at Biz Naming Central." This is the part of the story where things begin to go badly for Maryanna. Sadly it appears that it's the start of the story - and it pretty much stays on track from what we can see. Maryanna has listed a slew of names - many of which are highly evocative. And most of which (again sadly) are fatally flawed. Also note that we couldn't find a single name on the list that was connected to a business we could locate online (not even a mention of the company in an online phonebook!) But maybe we didn't look hard enough. It is obvious that Maryanna is a highly creative individual - we at Stokefire just happen to believe that creativity must be tempered by practical and experienced analysis, and we find that the latter is severely lacking. Here are a few (or more) examples:
The name? "Spunkwave." Rather than explain to you why this name is so striking to us, I will instead just list what we found in Google when we looked for the company. (I've edited the findings for our most delicate readers. If you search Google you'll likely see the beautiful/horrible truth.)
For some creativity comes easily. Sadly it often is the case in this world of specialization that creativity and hard analytical skills aren't paired in the same person. Perhaps this is the case here. And bringing this back to something a bit more related to what we do at Stokefire - we know that there are different skills required to name well. It's why we break our name generation process into multiple parts. We've found that the skills required to pull names out of thin air are different than those required to iterate on a single promising idea to find the best option. A mix of pure creatives and analytical types is required to discover, develop, analyze, adjust, and release a great name. Having all of one type results in greatly reduced chances for a strong identity. That said, we did think there were a few interesting or promising names on Maryanna's list. She's certainly got creativity. But her apparent approach puts the responsibility for knowing whether or not the creative name is a good one on the shoulders of the client. We at Stokefire feel strongly that our clients shouldn't have to know what makes a good name - that's what our expertise is for. We're not cheap - and part of what you're paying for is our ability to prevent you from (and this is going to sound really bad, but we don't mean it that way) releasing your own "Spunkwave." The names on Maryanna's list appear quite similar to the stuff that shows up during our creative sessions. Perhaps that's what the list actualy is - since there's no mention that the names are in use (only that they were created.) And for a creative list it ain't bad. But creative lists aren't what a client needs. Clients need guidance. What good is a big bunch of creative names if the client has no tools with which to measure how appropriate they are for their particular goals? Sure, it's better than a kick in the face (though that kick will often be less expensive) but what does it actually get you? More on name lists versus brand development and on the creative process... to come.
Quite a few of our clients often call into question one of the most basic assumptions we tell them to make. The assumption? If a name can be shortened in any way - via acronyms, dropping syllables, or just using the first portion of the name - your customers will find and use it.
(The companion parable to this - that you should never try to create your own abbreviated name from your full length name unless your clients force the issue - is something I'll address another time.) Most recently a client protested that I was being overly pessimistic and that people aren't that lazy. Here's what they said in as close as I can get to an exact quote: That's an overreaction, Tate. You should have more faith in the human race, nyo? We're not that lazy.Perhaps you can guess which word I'm going to point out as proving my point. No, it isn't the apostrophe-"s" of "That's". It's "nyo." If we can't take the time to pronounce a two syllable thought ("You Know") then how can we expect ourselves to say the long version of anything? If you examine where this particular example of truncation and shortening comes from I think you'll find that it traces back something like this:
I'm sure there are linguists out there that would be upset about this for all sorts of reasons. And I'm certain there are others that show this as proof that our language is healthy and adapting. My only reason for bringing it up is to show that we're always going to try to make things easier for ourselves. It isn't General Electric, it's GE. It isn't Kentucky Fried Chicken - it's KFC. And Stokefire? You'll never see us call ourselves "SF" or any other shortening. It's one of the reasons why we don't use mid-Caps in our name. Midcaps promote the use of acronyms and abbreviations. We figure if we're going to go to the expense of creating a name for ourselves and printing it on business cards we probably shouldn't be using a name that begs to be abbreviated. After all - we try hard to get our name in front of our prospective partners and clients... why would we want to double our effort by putting two names out there? (The real one and the abbreviated one.) We endeavor to have a name that doesn't go the way of "Do You Know What I Mean" and instead begs to be sounded out. Maybe even emphasized. And we endeavor to create those for our clients. Sure, there's power in GE, KFC, and IBM - but those names have millions of dollars of marketing to keep them in the minds of prospective clients. For companies that wish to be a bit more economical with their marketing dollars it makes sense to get a name that doesn't break down into an acronym. Seems to be working well for Google, doesn't it?
I received a letter in the mail from one of my representatives yesterday. It contained a newsletter with the title "Whippletter."
As you can probably guess (since you're one of our highly intelligent readers) the esteemed Senator's last name is "Whipple" (First and middle names are Mary and Margaret.) My question: Does this cramming together of words actually do anything positive for the Senator's brand? My follow-up question: Since no guide is given to how to pronounce this munged word what would you think the pronunciation should be?
When looking for creative ways to conjoin two terms you should consider the impact to more than just the way the words look on the page. Show them to people and ask how they'd pronounce it. If people stumble (as most did when I asked around the office) then consider getting rid of the confusing bits. (This is related to a widely accepted concept - that the human brain will look for familiar patterns when trying to figure out how to pronounce something. But sometimes the model identified doesn't provide clear guidance - like the brand "Vild" - is it pronounced like "Wild" and "Mild" or like "Sild" and "Gild". Interestingly most people hit on the latter pronunciation even though the former is more common.) What do you think?
Managing expectations is one of the hardest parts of developing powerful names. We work hard at the beginning of a project to ensure that expectations are set correctly. There's a misconception that names can do absolutely everything for a company. For example, here's a (slightly modified) list of things a client wanted from their name on a recent contract - before we helped them pare it down.
Let me be very clear: Names are the starting block, not the finish line. A good name can help set you apart from your competitors - and can perhaps help with a couple other goals as well... but it cannot get you repeat customers in most situations. You cannot, I'm afraid, have a name that does absolutely everything for your company. You also cannot have a name that doesn't have at least a few drawbacks. All the best names in the business have flaws - Google sounds like baby-speak, Caterpillars are squishy and eat crops... But the names set them apart - allowing them to get noticed and position themselves versus the competition. From there the companies can take over. Memorability, evocativeness, pronunciation, strategic fit... these are things we can work on with a name. (We have twenty-six other variables we throw in there too... but you can't have a name with all thirty variables pegged at "10.") For anyone out there struggling to find the perfect name... just stop. Perfection is not attainable. When you break a name into its constituent variables some will be strong and others won't. Just ensure that the portions that you're leveraging the most for your business are associated with the strong aspects of your name and you'll be set. Forget the All-Everything name. Just try to get one that is good at something while avoiding any major pitfalls. You'll be so far ahead of most other companies that you'll forget you ever wanted anything more.
Best. Jingle. Ever.
Please note that I am made unjustifiably happy by the idea that there's a company out there with this name. Or at least it appears that there was a company with this name. I can't find any website for them (but of course I can't speak or write in Japanese, so this isn't surprising.) Sometimes a name (and jingle) can be so bad (or badly translated) that it becomes almost endearing. This seems to qualify. And before you ask - Stokefire doesn't plan on developing names for translation into Japanese and back to English any time soon. You'll just have to wait for us to expand before you can get gems like National Rich You Grow Corporation and such. The following text is the only information I can find on the company (and it isn't from a reputable source): At the dawn of the 21st century and a small Japanese demolition company by the name of Nihon Break Kougyou (Japan Break Industries) tried to come up with an edge to compete in a very difficult arena. They decided to release their corporate theme song to the general public and lo and behold and it became a top ten hit in Japan!And here's the full lyric just in case you'd like to read ahead while listening... Break it down! Break around. We're coming to your town. To destroy, if you employ! We'll work without a sound.
Oh, cute! A whale naming contest!
The local CBS affilliate is having a contest to name a mother and calf that have gotten lost up the Sacramento river. Cool right? Right. Except as I seem to recall, many of these whales that wander up rivers tend not to live to see the ocean again. On the plus side, there's not much at stake here with the names. Whales probably don't care - or know - what we call them. On the down side we're going to have a whole bunch of little kids following Bonnie and Clyde - or whatever their names will be - and I don't know how easily they'll believe the whales went to live on the farm with the pet dog. So we're naming two animals that may be doing their best to off themselves for some reason. Let's make it a fun story for the kiddies! Whee! Interested in a better story about dying or dead whales? This one is my all time favorite. And it may just be the first story to ever use "Splud" to describe the sound of a whale exploding. After you read Dave Barry's version I encourage you to watch the video - especially the 30 seconds following the explosion. Bring the family!
Yep. I'm addicted to The Office - and am not quite sure what I'll do to recreate those uncomfortable laughs I've become accustomed to for the off season.
But this post isn't about my love for the NBC show, it is about the website and company names mentioned on the show's season finale. The website mentioned? Try: www.creedthoughts.gov.www/creedthoughts. Yeah - it doesn't go anywhere. But you wouldn't believe the number of hits that "creedthoughts" is getting all over the internet. Someone had the foresight to register creedthoughts.com a week before the episode aired (one can only assume someone on the production staff did it to prevent someone else from profiting) but the .net and a few other sites were snapped up shortly after the line was spoken. As far as names go - I actually quite like "Creedthoughts". I imagine that for lovers of the show the site would speak directly to those who wonder "what the hell is he thinking?" and it would attract quite a crowd of regular readers. Much like schrutespace, I suppose. UPDATE: There IS a creedthoughts blog. It is here. The show did have a rather uncomfortable naming-related moment when Michael Scott wraps up his interview with David Wallace (CFO of Dunder Mifflin): David: What do you think we could be doing better?What scares me the most is that this sort of thing really does happen in conversations with prospects and clients. I'll be the first to admit that client-submitted ideas often do quite well and we can build strong identities around them. However... In this case I just was made uncomfortable on every possible level. Wonderfully so, but... still... And if anyone is interested, both www.superduperpaper.com and www.papergreat.com are available for immediate camping and opportunistic exploitation as of 11:47 EDT on Friday, May 18th. Imagine the peaks in traffic you'll get when the DVD launches!
It certainly beats banning them outright, doesn't it?
I'm really not quite sure how I feel about this story: An energy drink called Cocaine that was pulled from store shelves in Illinois last week is being discontinued nationwide.What the company doesn't say is that some states had banned the sale of the product because they felt it glamorized drug use. So - I've a strong feeling that this was less about "concerns" and more about "bottom lines." The company is taking the step of re-naming their product. As I think about it more I think I am leaning towards an opinion... I don't like it. There are quite a few reasons to be concerned. A few right off the top of my head:
Both the FDA and consumers at large are smarter than this, aren't they? The real reason I'm a bit up in arms about the action taken here is that there is no law that I know of that prevents people from selling products named after illicit drugs. I remember there were nail polishes a couple years back that referenced illicit sex and drug use. Why didn't we ban them? C'mon US and state governments - if you're going to ban something with the backing of the government YOU NEED TO PASS A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL. Until that time you're just using knee-jerk censorship. So knock it off. Let Cocaine (the non-controlled energy drink) be sold. Figure out how to limit commerce in a way that isn't going to backfire (no "I know it when I see it" stuff) and put it on the books. Namers across the land will thank you. Or at least I will. And if I'm mistaken and there IS a law about names that glorify certain substances I'd love to hear about it. Tate Linden Principal- Stokefire 703-778-9925
Stop with the emailing! I will write about it. (But I do so under protest.)
Yeah, you all are exactly right. I don't like it. There are so many reasons for me to potentially be displeased that it becomes even less likeable due to the fact that I have to sort through the pile of bad stuff figuring out what reasons I want to share... Whatever... Let me start digging.
I have about five other reasons why this ain't a good thing, but I'll leave it to the many other bloggers who have already covered this. Just rest assured that I'm probably as peeved as you all thought I'd be about it. I'd be more peeved if I didn't just get "Shaun of the Dead" for a birthday present from my wife. (Yeah, I'm probably the only person in the world that has this on his top ten movies list, but I wear that badge proudly!) Tate Linden Principal - Stokefire 703-778-9925
...or maybe by both "A" and "E". We're not really sure.
The English language is a funny thing. You see, we English speakers have this strange way of Still need more proof? Try pronouncing the letter "A" without moving your jaw, lips, or tongue. Can't do it, can you? (And yes... those of you who just did this out loud in your cubicles... your neighbors do think you're going insane.) What does this have to do with naming? Not a whole lot, unless you're considering an acronym. Specifically an acronym with the letter A followed by the letter E. And further, it is only for acronyms that can't be pronounced as words in and of themselves. Consider the following potential acronym of "AEDP." You can't pronounce it easily in the English language (though if you tried it'd likely come out as "Ayeedipuhh".) Since the word doesn't work the reader or speaker is forced to sound out the letters themselves as "A-E-D-P". Seems okay so far anyway, right? Well, not really. Here's why:
The E vanishes! How about that? A letter than can be fully voiced and yet not registered in the mind of the listener. Pretty cool, eh? Unless of course the name is yours and you're hoping that people interested in your organization will be able to find you. (Hello to the wonderful association folks that just learned this as we reviewed naming candidates yesterday. Thanks for giving me something fun and informative to write about today.) Tate Linden Principal - Stokefire 703-778-9925 |
