Yes, as a matter of fact there is one.

It was written by Tom Fishburne and you can find it here.

Sadly the loop it suggests is less than comic for most people who undertake naming.  It's very much like the truth.

Here's the flow he outlines:

1. Brainstorm
2. Ideate
3. Sort
4. Lobby
5. Compromise
6. Check Trademark
7. Repeat

If this looks familiar to you then you need to consider another approach. 

How about:

1. Agree on name goals and importance of each
   
2. Agree on brand positioning
3. Confirm brand positioning against reality and tweak as necessary
   
4. Brainstorm
5. Expand concepts
6. Score concepts against goals and positioning (including trademark check)
7. Create mock-up identities for the top candidates
   
8. Select name that best meets the measurement criteria set at the start.

It's a rough approximation of what Stokefire uses in naming products... and in more than one hundred uses we've never had to repeat the process due to lobbying, compromise, or trademark issues. 

There is no lobbying because our system is analytically based.  The score is the ultimate tie-breaker.  Sure, some clients don't pick the best scoring name, but they do select ones that are near the top of the list. 

Naming ain't easy.  (Those who say it is likely aren't doing the type of research that enables companies and products to develop deep and powerful brands.) We are often perplexed by the many people (amateurs and pros alike) who seem to think that by encouraging a democratic process from start to finish the process will be made easier or the name stronger.  It doesn't work that way.

If you want mass participation then include that in the early stages of establishing brand positioning and the goals for the name - even brainstorming can benefit from extra input.  It ends there.  The actual selection should be as tight a group as possible.  If a democratic process - such as a vote - is required for a new name to be put in place then the preliminary selection should be made in advance, with the vote being one of two things - Either "YES" or "NO".

We advise that the materials be developed in support of the vote so that voters can understand the strengths of the name.  We also suggest that the full identity be developed so that the potential can be seen visually. 

That said - if you really want to come to a compromise you can go right ahead.  There's a reason why most names look an awful lot alike - and why company and product names follow trends.  Compromise encourages safety rather than risk, and safety means doing something that has been done before. 

Welcome to Dullsville, Population Infinity Plus You.

Yes, it's true - if you're going to rip someone off then the chances are excellent you'll do better if you give your rip-off a spiffy name.

Add Stokefire to the list of businesses that have been hit with this scheme - something that seems to be almost as pervasive as the Nigerian scams that come out every few months.  Here's how it works:

1. Receive a phone message from a Congressman's aide who says he wants to present you with the Congressional Order of Merit - and he leaves a toll-free number for you to call back.
2. When you return the call you are told that as part of the award you're also invited to serve on the Business Advisory Council and then you're instructed to listen to a taped message from congressman Tom Cole wherein he says the National Republican Congressional Committee needs your help to fight the liberal agenda.
3. You are asked for a donation of $495 after hearing Tom Cole's pitch and told that your name will be added to the list of NRCC supporters (in print) to be granted the title of "Honorary Chairman of the Business Advisory Council."  (This might seem strange, since this was supposed to be about getting the The Congressional Order of Merit, but you won't point this out to them.)
   
4. If you can't afford (or don't want to spend) that much they will offer you the same deal for the bargain price of $200.
5. If you have a fat wallet and really want that award they'll offer you a chance to have a seat at the President's Dinner for about $5,000.  It is not actually apparent whether or not the President will make an appearance here.  Karl Rove was known to show up at past events, however, so that's almost the same thing, right?

The only way you'll get your hands on the Congressional Order of Merit is if you pay for everything - which seems to have a price-tag of about $5200.

End result?  You get a couple pieces of paper, a nice night out, and your name on the NRCC donor's list.  All for doing nothing more than being on a calling list and having money.  Cool!

But think about this... would anyone ever spend money if this thing didn't have a nifty name? 

"Hi - we're with the NRCC and we'd like you give us money for our 'Feed the Rich' campaign.'  We'll even feed you lunch and dinner."

 See?  It doesn't work. 

Unfortunately the name has some serious flaws which become evident after you perform a Google search on it.  The very first hit is a story by Ira Flatow who very quickly exposes the whole thing as a charade.  You have to go through about three pages of links before you find the first mention that doesn't have the word "scam" in it.  One wonders how many Republican fund raisers now have Earl Stevenson on their quick-dial.

So what's the flaw?  Well, let's look at the very first aspect of the FAINTS system: Fidelity.

Is "The Congressional Order of Merit" a name that rings true?  It seems to imply two things:  One, that the US Congress is providing the Order, and Two, that they're acknowledging something that is meritorious.  Are either in fact the case?  Seems like the answer is no - even if we're generous.  Sure, this thing is sponsored by a committee that is related to Congress, but it isn't congress.  To have fidelity this should be "The National Republican Congressional Committee Order of..." but they seem to have left out a few of the words.   As for merit-worthiness.  Donating to the NRCC is indeed worthy of note from the NRCC and they may even consider a donation as deserving Merit if it is big enough.  But Congress would never (or should never) provide a similar label for something as mundane as opening a wallet.

Once this falls down on the Fidelity measurement the rest doesn't matter.  As the Google search shows us - the entire campaign is torn apart on the Internet and the reason it draws this attack isn't that it is a fund-raiser... it is that this is a dishonest identity.  They're not selling (or giving away) what the name suggests.  A score of (-5) on the Fidelity scale effectively kills this very promising and powerful name.  You can't expect to label your wheelbarrow of mud as prime rib and expect that people will continue to enthusiastically buy your product.  People may buy the mud once, but they're going to spread the word that the steak your selling is just wet dirt.  And they'll be pissed.

Two quick notes before I finish.
1) If you run a search on "congressional order of merit" on the NRCC website you return a sum total of zero hits.
2) The "Business Advisory Council" that we are told is an honor to participate in is listed under the NRCC Donor Programs - Individual contribution opportunities.

So - they're offering you an award they don't officially acknowledge (which is odd for something they tell you is their "highest honor") and giving you a title synonymous with NRCC donor.  How much is that worth?

Lesson:  Be truthful about what you're offering with your name and brand.  Make sure you consider the impact of overstating your product's benefits - or your overall brand image may suffer the consequences.


Many thanks to Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) for an entertaining morning of name and brand exploration.  (In case you were wondering what Congressman Cole does with his days - "Tom Cole spends most of his time listening to people."  That explains why he's still running this game... Google usually doesn't talk.)

A respectable cure for man-breasts?  One can only hope...

Sarah (the adoring adored wife of the Thingnamer) found a site that just begs to be ogled.  I felt an irresistible urge to check it out.  Why?  Well... What do you get when you combine a world leader with a couple extra pounds on his frame with a well tested underclothing support-system that keeps stuff from wiggling around?

The answer seemed obvious when we heard this website name.  Imagine a man-bra endorsed by someone in such a high office...  Finally men with prominent pectoral fatty deposits can feel confident again!  (If Putin can get behind this could Bush be far behind?)

We just bought a new car last week.  Paying sixty-five bucks to fill up the tank gets old fast.  So - out with the SUV and in with a nifty little dark grey Toyota Prius. 


I'd been trying to figure out exactly how you would refer to Prius in the plural and hadn't made much headway, so when my wife was out of the room I asked the salesperson.

Me: So... How do you refer to Prius plurally?

Him: Uhh... Priuses, I think.

Me: Oh.  That makes sense... I'd been thinking maybe Pria.  Well... How would you refer to a gathering of Priuses - like at a rally or something?

Him:  I have no idea.

Me:  I'd like to suggest "Priupism" 

Him:  ...

Me:  That's "Priupism" - with a "u."

Him:  Your car is over there.

Oddly he did not walk out to the car with me.  He waited for my wife.

Having made the water cooler chat much more interesting that day my job was complete.

This post examines another criterion (following yesterday's post on distinctiveness) commonly cited as a goal for organizational, product, or service naming: Simplicity. We're told that to be great a name must be simple... but we're rarely told why.  We'll take a quick look and see if its actually worthwhile.

You've probably heard or read it dozens of times... Perhaps even hundreds. 

Einstein said it best:

“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

Hmm... maybe Einstein didn't say it best.

An editor or copywriter of his seems to have improved upon it a bit:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Still not quite right, though, is it?  Engineers working on the Apollo program said it even better:

"Keep It Simple, Stupid."

If Einstein himself couldn't get simplicity right then how can any of us mortals be expected to do it?  And when Einstein got it wrong it's not like people ignored him, is it?  They just kept working with it until it worked out...

Of course, none of these statements actually say anything about why stupid people (or anyone for that matter) should keep things simple.  So - I aim to fill in that gap - at least as it pertains to naming.

Why does simple work for naming?  Two reasons:

1. People have a limited amount of attentional capacity.  Simple stuff requires less attention to notice than does complex stuff.  Things that are overly complex or involved just get ignored by our minds to preserve our sanity.  Consider this: You may notice the beautiful color of the buds on a blossoming dogwood tree (simple) but you would never stand there to count them all up and see if the number of blossoms had something to do with how beautiful it was (complex.)  Sure, someone might do this - but not your average consumer or viewer of dogwood trees.  If something is too complex it will be screened out - basically unseen and unprocessed by our minds.  If your name gets screened out for being too complex (like your typical five word non-profit association name) it's as good as not being seen at all.
2. People remember simple things easier than they remember the hard stuff.  Remembering the lines of a musical staff is hard (EGDBF).  Remembering "Every good boy does fine" is easy.  Simplicity is a significant key to being remembered once a name is noticed.  Simple means easy to understand and process.  This can be via mnemonics, rhyming or other tools that assist us in the processing and storing of this information.  I've never bought a "Pooper Scooper" for my dog, but after having seen it once I'm unable to forget the name.  If I had to send someone out to buy one I'd reference it by name and if they were on the aisle it'd be the one purchased.
   

As with distinction, simplicity is not a goal in itself - but a way to get other desirable goals.

Simplicity gets you noticed, getting noticed is a requirement to making the sale.  (You can't buy a product you don't see.)

Simplicity gets you remembered, getting remembered builds familiarity, familiarity reduces the barriers to making the sale.  (You can't ask for a product when you don't remember its name.) 

Last example - When I give speeches and talks I often ask what the best car in the world is.  People list about a dozen models from Ferrari to Honda.  When I ask who makes the safest car?  Almost unanimous - Volvo.  They stick with a simple message and become inseparable from the word.  That's powerful - I can think of no other brand that would bring the same word to mind for 95% of the populace. 

The power of simplicity is the power to break through barriers and screens.  Simplicity gets you further into mental processing than any other criterion.

In this Thingnamer's view simplicity is indeed a desirable measurement criterion.   In fact, I can't think of a single complex name that I like.  Though it's only a sample of one, I'd wager a lot of us only have place in our minds for the simply expressed names and brands.

How about you?

Okay, we don't know it for a fact, but we're pretty sure he's a fan.

Why?

Because just eight months after we helped Columbia Sussex launch the Blush Ultralounge - an ultramodern night club - Wynn grabbed the exact same name and used it to replace and rebrand Lure - his struggling night club that previously occupied prime real estate in his casino. 

We're flattered that he noticed our work and saw the potential.  Both Blush Ultralounges are doing great business - and while operations and execution play a major role in that, so too does the depth and quality of the brand name.  Given that Wynn had less than spectacular success with his original name (Lure) it stands to reason that the new one enabled an approach and experience that Lure couldn't offer. 

Incidentally, Lure was one of the names our team discussed with the team at Blush - and we ruled it out because we found it less brandable than the winning name.  Seems like Steve and the new owner learned the same lesson. 

So - Bravo to Wynn and Columbia Sussex for their successes!

Here's to hoping that Steve will give us a call and get him a name of his own next time.  (And if someone paid for the name... well... hats off to the team that got the money.  We don't have the Moxie to copy anyone's work quite this closely...  Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Anyone think that a company that invests in branding and research two years ahead of a hotel opening would fail to notice a nightclub owned by one of the biggest gaming and hospitality companies in the country?  We don't.

So... truly, Steve - we like the name and are happy you've selected it.  Given your budget and ability to execute, however, we think you could've selected some even more promising brand concepts that a less populous environment (like one in a tertiary market, perhaps) couldn't support effectively.  Opening another club?  Call us - we'd be happy to talk.  Really.

While doing a search for potential trademark conflicts for one of our repeat clients we came across a trademark filing that we just had to post. 

...In a world where porn was nowhere to be found on the Internet...  And where domain squatters didn't hoard all the good real-estate...

Nope.  It isn't fiction.

Tech Freaks posted a list of the first one hundred domain names to be registered - beginning way back in the dark ages of 1985.  You can click the link above for the full list, or view the top ten below:

1. 15-Mar-1985 SYMBOLICS.COM
2. 24-Apr-1985 BBN.COM
3. 24-May-1985 THINK.COM
4. 11-Jul-1985 MCC.COM
5. 30-Sep-1985 DEC.COM
6. 07-Nov-1985 NORTHROP.COM
7. 09-Jan-1986 XEROX.COM
8. 17-Jan-1986 SRI.COM
9. 03-Mar-1986 HP.COM
10. 05-Mar-1986 BELLCORE.COM

Anything having to do with sex, porn, fetishes, auctions, SEO, VOIP, and Paris Hilton was notably absent.  In fact, the list seems dominated by government contractors and large-scale manufacturers.  It seems quite a few of the first hundred are no longer serving the purpose they were registered for.  Sure, the long list of computer manufacturers (DEC, HP, IBM, SUN, INTEL, TI) is mostly intact, but Toad, Octopus, and others seem to be vastly different than they started out...  Unless an online travel agency was really that forward thinking...

In fact - the company with very first name registered - SYMBOLICS - is no longer operating. Long Live Symbolics!

And to all you Domain Squatters out there - just remember this... Even though you're likely camping out on about seven dozen domains that my clients want - you could've had 'em ALL if you'd just had your act together by 1987.  YOU COULD'VE RULED THE WORLD!!! 

(Don't feel quite so big and powerful anymore, do you?)

So, you really only need help choosing between a couple names?  Well... this post is for you!

One of the things that people come to Stokefire for is help in deciding between the top naming candidates already identified by a client.  (As a quick aside - though this is often what we're told our clients almost always have ended up using a name that comes out of our creative process rather than one they've developed independently.)

But... if you're looking for a name and really think you just need help deciding which is right I've found a tool for you.

Check out the Decisionizer!

Here's how it works...

1. You ask the website a question - like "Which name should I choose"
2. You enter each candidate under consideration
3. You list out the criteria for measurement (FAINTS - or one of the other items listed in that post - would work in a pinch)
4. You score each candidate
5. You get your answer.

Quick and easy!

Okay, maybe not entirely easy... or quick... there's still the issue of subjective measurements, lack of professional guidance, no help with internal politics, and the like. 

But if you really only need to make a choice this well certainly enable you to do so. 

Good luck.  (And if you actually do this, remember we're here for disaster recovery when you need us.)

This is a great video of Seth Godin speaking to an audience at Google.  Anyone who thinks that technology sells itself - and that marketing (or branding) is just a bonus -  needs to listen and watch. 

Even namers can learn a thing or two.  People don't buy products and technologies... they buy stories.  (Why else would anyone spend $25K per gallon for perfume?)

Yeah, it is 48 minutes long... but it is an excellent 48 minutes.

...except for the many spelling mistakes in the transcript.

Is there a connection between your favorite pair of jeans and the new name your company is considering?  Would I be asking this question if there wasn't?  Welcome to a blog post about... jeans and names.  (But not names of jeans.)

Quick thought before we depart for the holidays...

How many of you out there have a pair of jeans that you've owned for years, have worn through good and bad times, and only just now realized that there are more holes and raggedy bits than there is whole cloth?  Putting on your favorite jeans makes you comfortable, maybe brings back memories, or just allows you to stop sucking in your stomach the way you might have to when you're dressed for business... 

I've witnessed countless people - including myself - agonize over what to do when it becomes apparent the comfortable jeans with knee-holes that go clear around to the back of the leg are no longer suitable for wearing in public. 

Invariably we all try to find the same store that sold us the jeans in the first place and get the same cut as we had the last time. 

We want familiar.  We want comfortable.  We want our same damn jeans back. 

(The only time we don't is when we've had a major change - lost weight, put some on, or suddenly gotten -or lost- confidence in ourselves.)

Predictably I'm going to tie this to naming. 

We see exactly the same thing when we perform rebranding for our clients.  The first round of names we deliver almost never connects with the client.  They look for names that say the same thing that their old name did - but do it better.  Rather like looking for the same jeans they were wearing - but without the holes. 

In a recent project we asked the client to select the top three candidates from a list of twenty-five we submitted.  The names they selected were:

1. The name they use today
2. A variant of the name they use today, but with one word changed.
3. The working name of the rebranded organization.

In each case the reasons given were that they "felt right" or "familiar" or that they "just connected." 

Organizations typically rebrand only when there is a reason to do so.  Something changes internally or externally and the old identity no longer works.  It's like the major weight loss issue.  You can't wear the same jeans anymore even if they were comfortable.  Sure - you can still fit in them, but why not buy some that look good on the new you and accentuate your adjusted figure? 

Me and my Lucky Brand Jeans have been together for about five years (with occasional flings involving Indigo Palms - note... that is NOT as nasty as it sounds.)  I know it is difficult.  Especially when you don't feel that you've changed substantially.

Is there a lesson here?  Yeah, I think there is.  When considering names, if you sense you're being pulled towards the ones that are a lot like the one you've already got - take a step back.  Consider whether or not you (or your product or organization) has changed enough to merit a new look.  If you have then just remove the names that connect to the old you from the list. 

If you're the same and just want a new look you might want to consider keeping your name the same (or not changing your jeans) and instead focus on ensuring that you work on the way you present yourself.  (There's a reason why models always seem to present themselves to the camera in 3/4 view.  I'm not sure what the reason is, but there IS a reason.)  Marketing really can help - and marketing is much different and less invasive and costly than rebranding.

So - do you just need to control the camera angles or is it really time to get a new you?

Have a great holiday everyone.  I'm off to finish off a rebranding project - followed promptly by forcing myself to buy some unfamiliar jeans.  (Sorry, I'm not going to invest in anything low-rise.)

Want to have an impact on the environment and help whales, too?  This post is probably not going to be of interest to you.

This blog used to be filled with a common type of post - mostly containing diatribes written by me that railed on naming contests as ineffective, divisive, and generally rife with suckitude. 

Well, a new dawn in naming contests has arrived.

Whale naming competition

More than 11,000 possible whale names were submitted but we are now down to the last 30 possible whale names...which ones will be given to the wonderful humpback whales currently travelling on the Great Whale Trail?

Choose your favourite name from among the 30 below and hit the submit button at the bottom of the page. You can only vote once but you can ask as many friends to vote as you like.

Due to popular demand, the voting has been extended until the 7th of December 2007 at 17:00 Amsterdam time. So vote now and get all your friends to vote too.

Here's the list of names we're given to choose from:

Any of those stand out to you?

What do YOU think the results were?

Amazingly, I'm not against this sort of contest.  What's the harm in giving a whale with a stupid name?  Not much - it'll get press in the short term and people will remember the event for a while.  It keeps the contest sponsor in the news for a bit.  It's a lot like naming a baby panda - it gives a normally quiet entity like a zoo the ability to create interest with almost no investment in marketing. 

It's short term, it's low risk... it's bubblegum marketing.  You chew it for a minute or two and spit it out after its done its job.  

(I'm actually surprised that we don't see "Stephen Colbert" or perhaps "Bababooey" in the list...)

Now... imagine if this had been your company you were naming.  How'd you like to be the Mister Splashy Pants bar and grill?  (Okay... that might actually be fun...)  The Mister Spashy Pants Mortuary, maybe?  Imagine trying to find the CEO to run that company...

Hat tip to Jeffry Pilcher for reeling this in.

...for naming and branding...

...or for anything at all, really.

Marketers (at least the good ones) are big advocates for measuring the results - or the potential - of marketing and branding efforts.  Most of us in the industry have some system whereby we take an aspect of a campaign and measure it on a 1-to-10 scale - or perhaps a 1-to-5 or 1-to-3 system.

We tend to agree that evaluation is good.  Not only should use use systems that evaluate qualities before you release a brand - you should continue to measure after launch.  But generally speaking, it is the way we evaluate that seems to be tripping us up.

Consider the infamous 1-to-10 scale.  Harmless, right?  Everyone knows it, understands it, and can live with it.

But we've gotta ask if all of that really offsets the negatives we've encountered ourselves.  Does familiarity trump false optimism, inaccuracy, and inconsistency?  If it doesn't then folks need to find a better way...

Here's what we know to be true about positive evaluation scales:

• Using only positive numbers leads to falsely optimistic evaluations.  
• Given that our culture has the concept of negative numbers already established, when we don't use 'em there's a good chance that we're still factoring in their existence.  Consider an example where your brand ends up with a score of "3 out of 10" for some hypothetical quality.  There's a strong inclination to think "Well, at least we got three points, right?" since three is indeed a positive number and it is above the lowest potential score.  
  
• Now - shift the scale five points down (and add a zero to balance things out) and see what happens... A score of 3 turns into a score of -2.  Still think that score is harmless?  Scooting down the scale lets you accurately reflect the impact of the measurement without needing to spend large amounts of time explaining the scale.  "Negative is negative" is much easier to communicate than "4 is negative"
  
• Using only positive numbers cannot adequately capture the effects that campaigns (or branding work) can have on a brand.
• Sadly, marketing campaigns and branding activities can actually damage brands.  An all positive scale makes interpreting this potential for harm very difficult.  If a 1 to 10 scale were to be truly representative of brand potential then a score of 4 wouldn't be slightly below average - it would actually have a slight potential to damage your brand.   
• Using only positive numbers leads to inconsistently interpreted scores.  When someone says "I give that a seven out of ten" what does that mean?   Does a score of seven give you a grade of C (barely passing) or does it mean that you're rated "good" as is often the case on product evaluations? 
  
• Each of us has a different way of interpreting the scores based on our background.  A baseball player (from an environment where hitting 3 out of 10 is very good) is going to see things a bit differently than a nuclear engineer that would be unable to accept any score of less than 10 without putting lives at risk. 
  

Why does this matter? 

Because in looking around the branding world - when it comes to evaluating names - everyone who does it only uses numbers to the right of (or perhaps including) zero.  (At least as far as we can tell.)

Here's a sampling:
Talking Names
Igor's Evaluation Chart
Black Champagne Band Names
The Branding Blog

(We did find a couple sites that use negative numbers - but they had nothing to do with evaluating names across various qualities.)

I'm not meaning to bash anyone here.  There are dozens of examples out there but we namers are pretty damn hard to find.  This means that the better-known folks may take a disproportionate amount of the heat.

Ultimately my intent not to bash is best proven by the following admission...

You might be wondering why we know this much about a form of scoring that we don't use.  Well, Stokefire was in the same 1-to-10 crowd up until about June.  It was around that time we finally got it into our heads that our clients were all seeing the same thing and reading it differently.  (You'd be amazed at how many clients are perfectly happy with a score of "5" - even we explicitly state that "5" is "neither positive nor negative."  A "5" meant the negatives and positives were balanced - and that the name basically offered no help to the brand at all.)  We had to make it clearer.  "0" does the job very well.

So, fellow namers and even current and past clients... does this diatribe make sense?  Do you see the value in moving the scale down so that "bad" actually registers as a negative?  And should a neutral name be given a neutral score?

Does it clarify things at all?

(And for what it's worth - I rate this post a 4.  But I'm not going to tell you what the scale is.)

Alternate Title: Moron Name Generators

Okay, so the alternate title is probably a bit harsh - but it does help me introduce my topic for the day. 

I got a couple emails from folks who weren't entirely happy that I listed their site yesterday and did so without trumpeting the party line for name generators - which, if you don't know, is "Why the heck do you need a professional namer when all you have to do is click this button and you have a name?"

Name generators are a great tool (I did say that yesterday - so I wasn't completely biased) but they don't name companies or other stuff automatically.  I just can't make myself say something that isn't true.  (Okay, my sister might tell you stories from the seventies that would indicate otherwise - but on this topic and in this decade I'm not prone to making stuff up.)

Let's see if I can come up with an inoffensive metaphor...

How about:
Name Generators are a lot like a passenger train.  Sure - you know where you're supposed to be going, but without a trained engineer at the helm chances aren't good that you'll get there on time... if at all.  And there's a real good chance that if you DO get to where you're going someone is going to end up injured along the way.

Not too shabby.  And I think I've done a good job avoiding offending anyone except perhaps novice train engineers.

See, there's this problem with automated stuff, which is that it is probably really good at the stuff it is trained to do (like cramming morphemes together) but is absolutely horrible at the stuff it isn't programmed to do. 

Here's a random (and partial) list stuff that name generators (generally) don't do:

1. Check to see if the name conflicts with existing trademarks on a State, Federal, or international stage
2. Determine if the name sounds like something naughty in languages other than your own
3. Check for parsing issues (like penisland.com) when hearing or reading the name
   
4. Check to ensure that the name is easy to be pronounced for your target audience
5. Create a compelling story for your brand (other than "I clicked a button and got a name") that allows people to form a bond with your company
6. Ensure that the name has memory triggers that help the name to stick in the mind
7. Build consensus amongst your team and various stakeholders
8. Determine if there's anything in the name that can help to strengthen your brand
9. Determine if the name is a good match for your personality, voice, and mission
10. Determine if the name meets the goals you have for it
11. Ensure that you actually have goals set for your name
12. Check business directories and phone books to make sure your name won't have a lot of local competition
13. Talk to linguists and perform other searches to ensure that the name doesn't use terminology that is already conceptually owned by something or someone else.  (You could name your new shoe the "Thanksgiving Turkey" but it probably would result in a lot of people returning their inedible holiday meal.)
14. See if the shape of the word is easy on the eyes and easy to read.  Tillillypyg might seem like a good name when you hear it - but it's really hard to decipher when you see it.
15. Ensure that you're not using word-parts that are unpleasant to hear for your particular audience.  Ending your new perfume with an "-uck" sound might get you noticed - but probably not for smelling nice.
16. Check both the number of letters and syllables to make sure you're not expecting too much from your audience when they try to recall your name
17. Ensure that the name ties in with your business strategy
18. Check to be sure that you have a business strategy
19. Check to be sure that your business strategy is viable and can be supported by a name
20. Check to be sure your name is believable (if it makes any claims)
21. Check to be sure that the name actually does support the business strategy
    
22. Train users in how to evaluate whether or not a name is any good
23. Warn users when a name has major weaknesses that could lead to embarrassment or legal issues down the road

Sadly I'm growing tired of coming up with reasons why Name Generators aren't the ultimate in naming solutions.  I truly could go on all day (I'd guess there are a couple hundred things I could list) but I have work to do.

I do like name generators.  They can help get minds unstuck.   When quantity without context is needed they're a great source.  

But I don't think I would ever have a firm I worked for named by one.  And it isn't because I'm a namer.  It's because I don't have faith that a machine can understand the complexities of my business, my audience, my goals, and the complexities of developing a name that works.

And quite frankly I don't have faith that the people who programmed the machines in the first place have any real understanding of these factors either.  Or if they do they didn't take the time to put that part of their brain into the code.

It takes a person with a deep understanding of brands and naming to reliably do the job.  Kinda like the way putting a real engineer at the controls of that train will greatly increase the chances of that train arriving in Boston six hours after leaving Union Station. 

Moral of the story:  Don't mess with Thingnamers with blogs who give you free links.  Especially when they have an infant son who is both really hungry and teething.  All the FEED ME NOW - GET THAT OUT OF MY MOUTH - DOG TOYS ARE YUMMY - I DON'T CARE IF IT SAYS NOT TO FREEZE IT... DO IT ANYHOW (or at least that's how I interpret his squeals and demands) can shorten one's patience a tad. 

(And yep - it's all worth it Teddy.  You da man.  Keep slipping me those smiles and you know I'll do whatever I think you want.)

I've been sent perhaps a dozen free books on branding and marketing in the year and change I've been blogging. I've never written about them - mostly because there's rarely anything about naming or verbal branding in them.

This book doesn't have that disconnect...

The Soul of the Corporation by Hamid Bouchikhi and John R. Kimberly is an impressive book. And it is almost entirely related to what I do for a living. I'd suggest that it's one of the more advanced books on the concept of corporate identity, and it is backed by a slew of research (and the Wharton School.) While I didn't read it cover to cover yet, I did read the chapters that discuss the role of identity in situations that matter to naming - such as mergers, acquisitions, the beginning of new brands, and such. All of 'em were spot on - or a least headed in the right direction.

As an example - the book identifies the ingredients of Successful identity Change as:

1. Vision
2. Effective Communication
3. Consistency
4. Leadership Continuity
5. Luck and Positive Signals

While Stokefire's number one ingredient is missing (leadership involvement!) the list is one that is worth spending time to understand. It is clear that without any one of the five items a project will likely fail. They've at least provided a good starting point to work with.

Other interesting tidbits:

• An analysis of evolutionary vs. revolutionary change
• The difference between organizational and brand identity
• The downside(s) of branding (narcissism, id conflict, drift, & fragmentation)
• How to handle mergers, spin-offs, joint ventures, and more.
• Four leaders who've managed identity well, and four who haven't.
• Transitioning from a single brand to a portfolio...

If these topics don't get you motivated to read the book then chances are excellent you're not in the naming field. Or, as a former SecDef might say, "you don't know what you don't know."

Perhaps most refreshing was the near total lack of talking-heads from major branding firms that typically populate books like these. We get to see things through the eyes of employees, stakeholders, and customers - not the guys that developed (and are defending) the brand. Who cares what we, the creators of the identity, think. If the people who live the brand don't say it then it ain't real.

Bravo!

Many thanks to Wharton School Publishing for the comp. I've dog-eared so many pages that it's beginning to look like there's been trouble at the printer (since most of the upper-outside corners appear to be missing.)

How do you talk about "metering" without mentioning the meter?

That was just one of the challenges we faced while working on this project.

We're proud to announce another of our clients (The Automated Meter Reading Association - or AMRA) has launched their new identity. They needed a name that appealed to their core audience of senior leaders, could double as a new name for the industry as a whole, and avoided the verbal association between "meter readers" and "men in overalls" that seemed to be a bit misleading.

UTILIMETRICS was launched on October 2nd after over a year of brand analysis, development, and design. Check 'em out.

The AMRA/UTILIMETRICS team really impressed us with their understanding of what was needed to reestablish their brand. It isn't every day that you see an association take such a progressive step. Kudos also go to Bates Creative Group for their work on the graphic identity.

Can't wait to see what's next for the organization and the technology they represent.

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:

• Juventure -
  • Supposedly an ideal name for a young venture capital firm. Someone might like to check their homonymic dictionary before grabbing this one. May work very well amongst the Hasidim, however.
• Stringia -
  • The site lists this as inspired by string theory. We've got friends from Jersey that are already using this word to describe their hair in comparison to someone who uses conditioner.
• Xirant -
  • The claim on this name is that it is "semantically meaningless." We don't see that. We see "tirant" with a single letter x-ed out. Or if you get creative the "t" just got lazy and flopped over at a 45 degree angle. "Fast, strong, and masculine?" Sure. And prone to genocide too!

Okay, so I'm being a little picky here. We've said it before - any name can be ripped to shreds by someone with even a little bit of experience. But these names certainly make it easier than it should be. (Perhaps if the analysis hadn't been provided we'd be less likely to jump on the issues. If the site had advertised just domain names we'd be far more kind.)

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:

• ICQ = "I Seek You" (instead of "Ick!")
• IEEE = "I triple E"
• IALA = "Eye Allah"
• LED = "Ell Eee Dee"
• IUPAC = "Eye You Pack"
• SQL = "Ess Cue Ell" or "Sequel"
• FNMA = "Fannie Mae"

Each of these examples follows a different rule for pronunciation. And this list covers less than half of the potential pronunciation issues. It seems to me that taking the extra effort to say your name, then spell your name, then explain that the letter sounds are actually letter sounds and not full words (as in "ICQ") is more trouble than it is worth. Which leads me to...

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:

1. We did fine for centuries without even having a word to describe what an acronym was. It wasn't until the 1940s (shortly after The New Deal) that the mess of long-winded government programs likely forced us to come up with a way to describe the alphabet soup. Do you really want to be associated with annonymous government programs?
2. Typically you can't trademark your acronym by itself. And you can't prevent others from using the same one that you do. There aren't enough letters in our alphabet to allow every company and association to get their own short acronym reserved all for themselves. So...
3. You end up sharing your acronym with hundreds our thousands of other entities and no one can ever find you.

Think the big guys are immune? Think again. ABC - an acronym "owned" by the American Broadcasting Company - seems to have a bit of trouble keeping others off of their letters. On the first page of an ABC Google search we find:

• " yet Another Bittorent Client"
• Australia's public broadcasting network
• The national trade association representing merit shop contractors
• The audit bureau of circulations
• ...and references to three different branches of the American Broadcasting Company.

If we're generous and we allow a contextualizing term like "towing" to be added to ABC we should be able to find our local tow shop, right?

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:

1. Sorry W - I'm The Decider
2. Now You Know Why I'm a Democrat
3. About Dem Time
4. Look where voting republican has gotten us

Anyone feel moved?

Quick thoughts:

1. The first concept references the President - even though he's not running for office. Why would we apologize to him - or use his language to justify voting Democrat? And weren't we all the "Deciders" last time (and the time before) when he won? If we're the deciders then we're worse at it than he is.
2. The second concept makes little sense to me. I actually don't know why you're a Democrat - and the statement prevents me from asking any questions. We feel like an idiot for not knowing. Or at least I do. And the fact that the Dems already have the Senate (and haven't done a helluva lot with it) calls into question the entire statement. Lastly, I thought you voted Dem to prevent W from wreaking havoc. That's not an issue any more.
3. About Dem Time? Cute. Slogan-like. A little bitter. And... Dems already have the Senate, so it sort of lacks punch. How can it be about Dem time when it has been Dem time for the last two years? Are we talking presidential, senatorial, or just general politics here?
4. And the last? Where has voting republican gotten us? And why does it matter since most voters didn't vote that way in the last election? Sure there's the whole war debacle, but a Dem controlled Senate hasn't fixed it. On the plus side - if we did vote red last time then this is the only message that speaks to us. But it only has teeth if we voted red and regretted it.

We can do better.

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?

Okay, I’ve had it. We’ve all grown tired of names without vowels in the cell phone industry: Razr, Slvr, Krzr, etc. [Ed.: And don't forget the Interweb!] So today I’m trolling through luggage on the Target website and what do I find? A rolling carry-on bag called the BAUER ORGNZR. I’d just like to say for the record that I don’t want my clothing orgnzd when I travel. If all the vowels were missing from my clothes, how would I bttn my shrt? Would my scks and shs still fit my ft? And I shudder to think what would happen to my laptop. I’d end up writing like an advertising geek, lose all my friends, and spend my waning years alone in a thrd-flr wlkp. Too sad.

...and another Stokefire name hits the market.

How do you develop a name for a green media firm without using the words "green," "eco," or any of the other current buzz-words used in the space? By focusing on how you're different and what you're trying to achieve rather than slapping a "me too" name on that blends in with the crowd.

emPivot opened for business this week and is already gaining attention as the place to go to find and share new perspectives on green issues.

Why emPivot? Because the founders (Chace Warmington and Thom Wallace) felt strongly that their purpose was not to spread the gospel of green to the choir, but instead to offer a place where real people can discuss every aspect of green - whether they're passionate supporters, detractors, or on the fence. This is about empowering a change in perspectve - a change in opinions - or a change in lifestyle. The concept of being green doesn't move all that much, but our understanding and perspective can change rapidly.

While "green" was off-limits for the name, it was still in play for the tagline - something we proposed using to contextualize a name that didn't immidiately shout its purpose. (You'll note that Google, Yahoo, Kodak, Exxon, Sears... and just about every other great brand in the world... doesn't disclose their market in their name. They use advertising, taglines, and other tools to get the context across. We think we're in good company here.)

Stokefire developed both the name and the tagline for the new company (a brand owned by Ecofusion.) The result:

emPivot: View Green From Every Angle

We also developed alternate taglines for future use - and we'll trumpet those as emPivot grows their brand over the coming years.

We'll post a full case study and press release later this month - and will have even more information available once our redesigned corporate website sees the light of day in September.

Great job thus far Thom and Chace... looking forward to more great things from your team!

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!

OH! AND HERE IS MY BUSINESS CARD - LET'S GRAB A BITE SOMETIME. BUT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER! PREFERABLY BEFORE... WELL... YOU KNOW."

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...

Ever want to have a big-time title? The Republicans are ready to let you earn one. For five million dollars.

Yep. Five big, big, big ones donated (or rather offered to the RNC to sponsor the Republican National Convention) gets you:

• A private reception with Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman, and the mayors of the cities ear the convention.
• A private dinner with Republican leadership.
• Golfing with Republican leadership.
• An opportunity to sponsor water bottles, volunteer outfits, city banners, billboards, bus signs and events.
• Access to the media party.
• VIP access to the convention.

And... best of all... the RNC will officially give you the title of "Finance co-chair."

(Perhaps this is because as the minority party they figure someone on the right side of the fence should get a co-chair title.)

And the Democrats, you might ask? What are they offering up?

For the bargain price of $1 million you can have:

• Invitations to private events with the Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Mayor John Hickenlooper, Sen. Ken Salazar, and more.
• VIP access to the convention
• Premier sponsorship of the media party
• Top sponsoship of the "coveted fete" media party
• An opportunity to place products with corporate logos in delegate and media goody-bags.
• Invitations to all host-committee events

And yes... the Dems are offering up a title. Sort of. Actually, they're selling adjectives.

The adjective in question? Presidential.

If I were going to donate a million bucks I think the more obvious title would be "Rich." It's a good thing that the title the Dems selected doesn't suggest that power and influence can be bought, isn't it?

If you don't have that top level of funds available you can consider offering up a bit less. Both parties have developed nifty - and strangly similar - levels and titles. Check this out:



What does this tell us? Perhaps:

• There are no Democrats with more than a million dollars to spend.
• If the Democrats win the presidency all precious metals will be cheaper.
• For Democrats, though there's assuredly a second place, there is no third.
• Republicans are either having their convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, or they're really big fans of Norse mythology.
• You probably don't want to use that plane restroom after a Democrat has vacated it. Or if you do, bring some Sani-wipes.

I'm not saying that naming funding levels is easy. But "Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze" is only slightly less mundane than having "Red, White, and Blue" levels (which isn't often done on a national level nowadays since no one wants to label a donor as "white.") Why aren't we seeing a tie-in to the party platforms? Is appreciation for precious metals really that much of a key to the identites of both parties?

You want to see a spike in donations? You want to get press? You want to get people talking? Here's how:

Use controversial platform topics as your funding levels.

Imagine the Democrats having an "Equality Advocate" level or the Republicans with a "Protectors of Marriage" sponsorship. Sure it is divisive. But imagine the power of being able to show that there are 5,000 people or companies willing to not only say that they are for (or against) gay rights, but show they are committed with a dollar sign next to their name. You want more notice? Add in right-to-life issues, death penalty, and the like. How many churches and community groups wouldn't be throwing dollars at the campaigns to show their support for a cause that mattered to them?

Will it happen? I'll almost guarantee that it won't. But I'd love to actually see a party or candidate take a stand like that. If it matters to the candidate/platform then why not allow the constituency to show their support for the idea? We'd know real fast whether or not an issue had real support.

Are you with me?

Interested in more on this topic? Earlier this year I wrote a post about the terms the individual candidates used for their fund-raising efforts. I must admit that even the worst ideas used by the candidates can trump the best the DNC and RNC have pulled together.

Is it because the categories were developed by committee? Probably.

Add another nail to the coffin that contains focus groups and working committees, please. (Though "Mile High Plus" is a pretty impressive name to be approved by committee... hard to believe someone didn't choke on the sexual connotation.)