There have been a number of Dilbert strips that deal with naming; seems like Scott Adams does about one a year. And you know what? It’s still funny, and it’s still true!

This is the crux of naming: finding names that are both appropriate and available. Lots and lots of names are appropriate but completely unavailable; many “names” are available but utterly inappropriate, as Dilbert points out above. Go with the former strategy, and you’re likely to get sued. Go with the latter, and you end up with a company name like Nemesis Motors (actual example).

After nearly 15 years in the naming biz, I can safely say that I do not want to see these name suggestions in technology ever again. They are not available, will not be available, and they’re taking up valuable 0s and 1s on my hard drive. That’s your free advice for today.

Explorer
Spectrum
Oasis
Visa
Vista
Next
Engage
Edge

Additions to this list are welcome!

Tags: dilbert, naming experts, Product Naming, technology naming, Trademark
Posted in Fun stuff, Product Naming, Trademark | No Comments

This item was originally published on April 15, 2010 at Fast Company.

I decided to blog about the new Microsoft Kin name even though I know that the name makes absolutely no difference to Microsoft, its target audience, or its stockholders. In that way it’s a lot like the iPad: an okay name that got a lot of attention when it was announced, but which quickly faded into the background as the device itself grabbed the spotlight.

I get why they chose the name: the phone is supposed to be part of your family. It’s friendly, a short word that’s easy to say and that fits really well on the GUI. It’s amazing that Microsoft managed to get the TM for a short, three-letter real English word*. (Having named the Palm Pre, Catchword can attest to the power – and the difficulty! – of that achievement.) It stands up just fine to the rest of the phone names on the market, and fits in very well with the MS naming style of using real English words.

I’m still not sure whether The Cat in the Hat reference was intentional, but I have to assume it was. Perhaps the next generation will be called Little Phone A and Little Phone B, right on through Little Phone Z, the nanophone. In any case, they’re cute names for cute little phones!

So, some good pros. How about the cons?

But I started off by saying that the name wouldn’t really matter, and despite the Kindle thing, the target audience won’t really care what it’s called – just that it works. Its predecessor in the market, the Sidekick, wasn’t a big hit because of the name, and the iPad will succeed because it’s cool and does what it’s supposed to, not to mention making people want to touch it. If the Kin delivers, it’ll sell.

And who knows – maybe there’s a chance for a Dr. Seuss co-brand. I’d buy a phone with Thing One on it!

*OK, they do have that 5-story building full of lawyers. Maybe not so amazing.

Tags: cell phone names, cell phone naming, Kin, Microsoft, phone names, phone naming, Product Naming, technology names, technology naming
Posted in Fast Company, Product Naming | No Comments

Tags: beauty product naming, cosmetic naming, cosmetics names, cosmetics naming, Product Naming
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

As I read Amy Zipkin’s article in yesterday’s New York Times about the litany of formerly defunct brand names that have been re-introduced to the market, I kept noodling on the same question: is it easier to launch a new brand name or to reconfigure an old one?

The naming consultant in me would like to think that it is easier to introduce a new brand name. That is, after all, how I make my living. But building brand recognition is expensive, and folks like Sharper Image and Circuit City have spent oodles on their brands over the years. Just because their business models didn’t work doesn’t mean their brands can’t still pull in big bucks. I bet most folks don’t even know that these companies have gone under. I do know these companies are belly up, and yet, if I saw a Sharper Image product on the shelf tomorrow, I’d still give it all the positive associations I had with that brand before they went under. That’s gotta be worth something.

Tags: brand name, naming consultant, Product Naming, reused brand name, technology naming
Posted in Brand Naming, In-the-News | 1 Comment

I’m sure by now most of you have seen the announcement of the new product from Segway and GM, the PUMA. The naming consultant in me is of two minds. On the one hand, I love the name. It’s short, punchy, and relatively easy on any non-native-English speakers they may want to sell to. Furthermore, it communicates agility, movement, and intelligence, all good things for a radical new vehicle to personify. So far, so good.

But on the other hand, the name has two huge flaws. First, it is already “taken” by a major athletic equipment brand. While there isn’t likely to be a trademark dispute over this name (the trademark office is smart enough to know that there isn’t much chance of consumers confusing a shoe with a motor vehicle), there is a big mindshare issue. Puma (the athletic company) has recently made a significant resurgence, and is once again among the leading brands in the category. Segway could have done itself a favor by choosing a product name with more room to maneuver.

Furthermore, the company seems dedicated to teaching us that P.U.M.A. is an acronym (it stands for Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility — but of course you knew that). Why? What does that really long, cumbersome, and generally forced extended version of the name add? Nothing, really, that we didn’t already know by a) the fact that Segway is selling it and 2) one look at the darn thing. Every time they push the acronym extension, they take away all the great sleek and agile cat associations that made the brand name so cool in the first place. The extended version is just trying too hard to do too much. Let the brand name carry the cool part and create a tagline or product descriptor to communicate the rest.

Tags: auto namig, automobile naming, automotive names, car naming, GM, Product Naming, PUMA, Segway, vehicle naming
Posted in Brand Naming, In-the-News, Product Naming | 4 Comments

Yeah, I know the title was a cheap joke, but what the heck.

I knew that GodTube existed, but just the other day I found out they’d changed the name to Tangle. It was originally launched in 2007 a video sharing site, and it set the record as the fastest growing Web site in the U.S. during its first month of operation. It was obviously a reskinned version of YouTube and catered to a Christian audience, featuring sermons, comedy, theological debates, as well as music videos. Over time they added a Christian news service and Godcaster, which allowed any church in the world to stream its services for free.

The site grew rapidly and attracted up to 2.7 million users a month. And then at the end of last year (2008), they announced expansion and forthcoming name change. In February 2009 they announced the new positioning:

Tangle.com has expanded to become the go-to Web site for the family-friendly community to safely interact online through a full social network.

My first reaction was to cock my head to the side like my friend’s dog Jack, when he’s thinking the dog equivalent of “Huh?” So I did a little more research to find out why they heck they thought this was a good idea.

From the Dallas Morning News:

“The old name ‘GodTube’ was a little polarizing. We wanted a name that was more encompassing,” said Jason Illian, CEO. “We don’t shy away from our faith-based community, but we wanted to expand that.”…

But GodTube, like many new Internet businesses, remained in the red. And the obvious imitation of YouTube made some evangelical Christians wince.

“It’s one thing to rip off the product, but to rip off the name itself was a little disappointing to a lot of people,” said Scott McClellan, editor of Dallas-based Collide magazine, which covers media and church life….

He describes a six-month process of picking a new name, working through 10,000 possibilities with the help of focus groups.

“Tangle.com” – suggested early by Illian’s brother Ben, interactive media manager for the site – prevailed because it fit the social networking focus.

“You can not only get tangled up in relationships, but you can get tangled up in all the tools, whether they’re blogs or video or photos or ‘tickertape’ [a line of newsy text that runs across the site's main page],” said Jason Illian.

The site also has a new, light green color scheme, and Illian promised that the next months will see the rollout of various innovations for helping individuals and groups connect.

Tangle.com retains “Christian underpinnings,” Illian said, but projects no specific theology. Rather, it’s meant to be a site that advertisers and users of various faiths (or none) can feel comfortable with, because objectionable images and text are screened out.

You can see Jason Illian talk about some of this in the video he made to announce the name change (which is hosted at Tangle, naturally). What he does say in the video – but which isn’t in the newspaper article – is that “Christians need to be tangled up in their faith”.

I don’t know about you, but I kind of think there’s a conflict between “no specific theology” and “Christians need to be tangled up in their faith”. Well, at least it’s better than the old GodTube terms of service, which prohibited any content “contrary to the evangelization of Jesus Christ and His teachings, or constitutes blasphemy, or is otherwise offensive to our online Christian community”.

I get what Illian is saying about the word “tangle” as a way to express “intertwining” or “drawing everything together”, but aren’t tangles usually bad things? Snarls, knots, jams, snares? A tangle is usually something you want to get out of, not in to. And then there’s the meaning of “mess with” or “provoke” – also negative, and kind of threatening too (do you want to tangle with god?).

There are so many more appropriate metaphors for the kind of involvement that Illian wants to promote; I’d love to see some of the 9,999 rejected names, because I’m sure there were at least 5 of them better than Tangle. This is a classic example of inward-looking marketing: these guys had a metaphor and they were bound to make it work, dammit (should that be “darn it”?), even though no one else understands what they’re trying to say with the brand. I browsed around the intertubes and nobody, not even loyal GodTube users, likes the name Tangle or the idea of “tangling” faith and other aspects of life and social networking. Note to Jason Illian: stop using your employees and your three best friends as focus groups.

While I’m sure they’ll make the brand work, and maybe even turn a profit – they’ve been running in the red since they started up – Tangle has unfortunately saddled itself with a name that’s got an uphill struggle from the moment of launch. Bravo for getting the exact .com domain – but then, aside from Johnson & Johnson, makers of No More Tangles, who would want it?

Tags: GodTube, Product Naming, religion, religious names, Tangle, technology naming, YouTube
Posted in Brand Naming, In-the-News | 3 Comments

For those of you who missed it last week, there was a hilarious naming skit on 30 Rock. (You can watch it on Hulu.com here or scroll to the bottom of this post – the naming bit starts about seven and a half minutes in, just after the first commercial break).

First, I know I speak for all naming consultants when I say that it is about time the naming industry registered on the pop-culture radar screen. Too long have we endured obscurity–dare I say anonymity–while our ad exec brethren grace both the silver screen (“How To Get Ahead In Advertising,” “What Women Want,” et al.) and the flat screen (“Mad Men,” “Trust Me,” et al.). And while this isn’t quite a show dedicated to the naming industry, it certainly features the travails of our profession quite nicely. Well done, NBC.

So here’s the deal: Alec Baldwin’s character Jack has created an innovative new product, a “pocket microwave”. Of course, the first name he wanted (the “bite nuker”) was rejected by his legal team. So what does he do? Does he immediately call Catchword, his trusted and hugely successful naming company? Sadly, no. Instead, he brings in all the creative people he knows in the company and tries to do it internally. Jack Jack Jack. How many times have we talked about this? As any seasoned naming consultant will know already, legal rejects all the other internally-generated candidates too. (Sound familiar?)

Now normally, legal folks reject names because of trademark issues. But Jack works for GE, and his legal team is rejecting names because of linguistic problems. Of course, had he engaged Catchword, he would have been able to avoid these legal/language problems–we have a test for linguistic performance. But no. He thought he could do it on his own. Why do you people insist on trying to create product names on your own? We’re here to help!

Finally, one person in the group comes up with a name that isn’t offensive in some other language: The FunCooker! All is saved, cheers abound. But wait … could it be? Has the term FunCooker already been tarnished? Alas, the source of the name is revealed as a famous actor’s pet name for his rear end, which has just been plastered all over the tv screen, with the all-too-clear reference to his “funcooker”.

Well boys, back to the drawing board. Ready for some professional naming help yet?

Tags: 30 Rock, Fun Cooker, linguistic analysis, microwave naming, naming problems, Product Naming
Posted in Brand Naming, Catchword, Fun stuff, Product Naming | 1 Comment

I love Mental Floss — Everyone should read it. They ran a fun naming piece yesterday on the origins of eight high-tech brand names. The brand names origins they illuminate include: TiVo, Bluetooth, Hulu, Blackberry, Wii, Wikipedia, Asus (um, what?), and Prius.

The post is a fun one, giving origin stories that savvy name aficionados already know. My beef is not with Mental Floss or their fun article. Instead, I have a bone to pick with the companies who pick random names at will, and then backfill meaning into their brand name.

Do you really think the folks at pre-Hulu really knew that the word meant “interactive recording” and “a hollowed-out gourd used to hold precious things” in Mandarin Chinese? If so, then they probably also knew that it meant “butt” in Indonesian and would never have chosen the name for a global brand. Hulu is a fun, four-letter word that recalls Hula ad Lulu (which is probably the real name origin). It has a consonant-vowel structure and is meaningless enough for them to build any brand personality they want around it. They probably picked Hulu as their name and then discovered that it had these other meanings when they conducted brand name linguistic analysis before launching. Which is fine, but just own up to the truth. The truth will set you free, Hulu!!!

And the story about Toyota believing “the Prius was going to be the predecessor of the cars of the future,” so they chose the Latin word for “before.” Um, so not plausible. Nice story though.

Tags: Asus, Blackberry, Bluetooth, brand name origins, Hulu, name origin, names, naming, Prius, Product Naming, TiVo, Wii, Wikipedia
Posted in Branding, Company Naming, Product Naming | No Comments

Another player has just entered the virtual world arena. Leap In Entertainment announced the public beta of their virtual world called Just Leap In. There aren’t that many virtual world players in the space, but their names are scattered all over the place. You’ve got: Second Life, Google’s Lively (RIP), There, Meez, Zwinky/Zwinktopia, Entropia, Vivaty, and Active Worlds. (Granted, there are others. But these seem to be the most recognizable.)

I like a lot of the names in this category. I especially like the names that function as nouns, even if they’re abstract nouns. Second Life and Active Worlds, as boring as they may be, both names work for me because they’re nouns that can be used to describe the place users go to when they log in.

Meez, Entropia, and Zwinktopia also function as nouns, so they make sense. Although, I don’t love these names, I just like that they function as nouns. (In fact, Meez and Zwinky sound like web 2.0 names that were chosen solely based on domain availability!)

Google Lively was a great concept, but the name flopped a big fat squishy dead-fish flop in my book. Had Google used this name for any other project (Instant messaging perhaps), I’d be a big fan. But using an adverb is awkward when trying to describe where you’re going. “I’m logging into Lively,” or, “See you in on Lively” just doesn’t jibe in common net speak. Maybe in time, this adverb might have been transformed into a noun in internet speak. I suppose we’ll never know.

I particularly like Vivaty because it’s abstract enough that it could be a destination or location. However, it also offers some relevant semantic content with the “viv” word part suggesting life or living. In the same vein, I think There is a peculiar and great name. “I’m logging into There,” or “See you There” are both great examples of how this common English word has been appropriated in a unique way. [Full Discolsure: Catchword named Vivaty.]

Which brings me to Just Leap In. Riddle me this, Batman: Is this the company’s name or tagline? It sure seems more like a tagline to me! For example: Second Life: Just Leap In, or Vivaty: Just Leap In. It’s a powerful call to action which works great as a slogan, but not as well as a product or company name. Just imagine if Just Do It was the company name instead of Nike. That would be just plain weird.

Even the company’s logo has been reduced to an initialism: JLI. I’d wager that users will reference their destination as JLI. “Just Leap In” is too hard to say and isn’t noun-y enough to roll off one’s tongue. What’s more, once a company name or product name has been reduced to its initials, it begins to lose all relevant semantic content. At which point, what’s the point in naming the thing at all?! (In fact, I’d advocate just calling it Thing or Thinger. At least both of those are abstract nouns!)

I suspect that if JLI is successful in attracting users, they might find themselves seeking a naming company to help with a name change sometime in the future. If so, I happen to know a great firm with experience naming virtual worlds.

Tags: Active Worlds, Company Naming, Entropia, Just Leap In, Lively, Meez, Product Naming, Second Life, slogans, taglines, There, virtual world names, virtual world naming, Vivaty, Zwinky
Posted in Brand Naming, Company Naming, In-the-News, Product Naming | 1 Comment

I beg to differ with my esteemed colleague’s blog post about the naming of Windows 7. In it, Burt said “if Landor can get paid to come up with “FedEx” out of Federal Express, someone certainly can get paid for “7″ as a brand for the 7th version. Funny, Catchword never seems to get tapped for those easy jobs.” Well, maybe we didn’t create with the number “2″, but we were certainly asked to provide guidance to LeapFrog on what to name the second generation of Leapster. We went through a whole series of alternative modifiers – including candidates like Live, Go, and Connected – before we all agreed that the best choice was to go with the simple number “2″. This indicated that the new version was significantly different from the original Leapster, while maintaining the brand equity in the name (and not distracting from it with a word that might become a sub-brand, in the way that “Nano” and “Shuffle” are for the Apple iPod).

Look for more Catchword-named products from LeapFrog, coming to a store near you in 2009…

Tags: Leapfrog, Leapster, Product Naming, technology naming, version number
Posted in Brand Naming, Catchword, Product Naming | No Comments