How to choose a brand name
Organisations don’t build reputation on name alone. A name’s rarely encountered in isolation – it’s bound in a wider experience – and a good one won’t save a misconceived or badly executed idea.
That said, a strong name can’t be underestimated. It’s a tool in a bigger armoury, but it’s a solid one. It opens the conversation with a user and it’ll hang around every interaction there on in.
When we name our kids, we author the opening lines of their first chapter. We give them names they can grow into, names that fit our vision of what they’ll become. And we know that beyond hypothetical hopes, names can have real consequences. Campaign strategists spend hours plotting the options for political candidates, and name bias in recruitment is well-documented.
When it comes to brand and product names, they’re signals. They can be literal, describing an offer in a matter-of-fact, or figurative, conveying something about an organisation in a nutshell.
Beyond the straightforward demarcation of A from B, names guide us one way or another. They influence our choices, shape behaviour. We coin nicknames (Maccy D’s, obvs) and get frustrated by unilateral change. The fierce reaction to the Post Office’s re-naming attempt is testament to that, as is the petition that saw a million people denounce the humble Choco Krispy. Also, Boaty McBoatface!
Naming’s tough though. Anyone can come up with a good one, but in reality getting stakeholder buy-in and crossing the finish line gets complicated.
Firstly, it’s always subjective. While living with and weighing up a name in context over time is a good idea, it’s impossible to avoid instant, idiosyncratic reactions. And that’s no bad thing to be honest. If your gut tells you it’s terrible, it probably is.
Secondly, globalisation makes things tricky. A word in one language will resemble a word in another, and inevitably, the lookalike / soundalike will mean something you’d rather it didn’t. Cue the cautionary tale: French brand Bic changed its name from the original ‘Bich’, Chevrolet launched the Nova car in Latin America where it literally means ‘doesn’t go’, and so the list goes on.
It’s worth investing in research to check connotations, especially if there’s potential for international launches, or if there’s a diaspora in the target market (Spanish speakers in the US, for example). Google helps but really, you need specialist linguistic and cultural sensitivity checks in this scenario.
Lastly, there’s trademark, social media handle, and URL availability. This bit is basic and too boring to go into here, but it’s important to say that it has to be factored in to any naming process.
Overall, what makes a great name? To my mind you’re after the following:
- Semantic value
Does the name convey the right attitude or idea? I know they’re not always needed but I love a name with a bit of pizazz. Ranted about in the Drum, actually. - Strategic impact
Have you considered the corporate strategy? If the product or service proposition will evolve, does the name give it space to do this? - Phonetic structure
Is the name easy to remember and say? Is it easy to spell? - Ownability
Do you need a trademark? What social media handles are available and can you align them with a URL?
If you want to learn more about naming and follow a well-defined process, there’s guidance in the handbook I wrote during my time at Wolff Olins. It’s old (and not without the odd typo!) but it’s available on here.
Also, you can always drop me a line :)
