X marks the proverbial spot.  It’s also the X factor, that special something that you just can’t define but that probably, if you’re willing to buy into it, makes all the difference.   It’s a kiss (hug, kiss, hug), where you place your Johnny Hancocky, and the WRONG answer.  It’s things taken to the Xtreme, the generation whacky and brilliant enough to marry TV and Music, and limitless, Xponential possibilities.  And, though “Ex” is more common, X could be a pseudenym for that nasty, trampy, how-could-you-do-this-to-me-after-all-I’ve-done-for-you-you-selfish-self-important-and-not-even-really-that-charming-son-of-a-b*tch.

There are probably a hundred more different uses of the letter X, but you get the point: X can stand for, and communicate a lot of things.  It’s a pretty darn versatile letter.  Go X.  So it’s funny that, upon reading about Motorola’s new Droid X cell phone (the follow-up to its totally awesome, iClone competitor, the Droid, which I proudly own) I should have such a singular association with the name.  In my defense, and getting closer to the point of this post, the intended association was lost in graphic translation! 

That is, my only exposure to the brand name was in print, as the subject of an article or product review that included no image of the product and the manufacturer’s (or carrier’s) intended use of the X as an exponent to the word “Droid” (see picture of uber cool phone).  It was always just DROID X, with a big ol’ capital X.  Now, maybe my association with the name was unfairly and surprisingly limited (and btw, I was taken almost exclusively to the X factor, which as one of the now Android converted I WOULD actually buy into), but without the help of graphic support there would be no reason to necessarily think, oh right, X as in exponent, as in Droid to the X power.  As in Droid^X.

And this underscores the point that I’m apparently taking forever to make.  Specifically, that names do not always receive the benefit of graphic illustration and need to “work” as communication vehicles independent of their brand identities.  Even if print really is dead and we all eventually have cell phones (or tablets or e-readers or whatever) surgically attached to our palms for anytime news access and useless apps (like that one that, as a joke, will automatically bombard your contacts with scores of costly text messages – WTF?!), brand names will not always be presented in all their graphic glory.  Sometimes names will be sportin’ their birthday suits, and sometimes superscripts may not be available or convenient to use.  Sometimes it won’t be Droid^X , It will be Droid X.

Don’t get me wrong.  I actually like the Droid^X name.  I like the simplicity of it, the association Motorola/Verizon wanted to draw to endless phone possibilities and being Droided to the max, and the way it modifies the Droid brand name rather than replaces or upstages it.  But I think it’s a good example of how a name (and in this case, a construction) can be too heavily dependent upon design in order to communicate its intended brand message.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

On a separate note, I’m inviting our readers to submit cool definitions for the term “Droidian Slip”?  The coolest definition will get, well, pretty much nothing except the title “The person who came up with that cool definition of Droidian Slip.”  And that’s something!

Tags: cell phone names, cell phone naming, Droid names, Droid naming, mobile phone names, mobile phone naming, Motorola names, technology names, technology naming
Posted in Advertising, Brand Naming, Branding, Fun stuff, Language use, Product Naming | 1 Comment

Here’s a really bad idea: Launch your new and totally awesome product, then give it four (yes four!) brand names. Sounds preposterous, right? Well, believe it or not, this is a real story taking place in the technology market, as we speak.

Samsung is preparing to launch its newest Android smartphone, the Galaxy. And unlike the leader of pack (iPhone), Samsung is abandoning carrier exclusivity by launching on all major U.S. mobile operators. The upside is that Samsung gets to sell its new device to any consumer who wants it. The downside is that each carrier gets to slap its own moniker on the phone, confusing everyone. The Samsung Galaxy will be known as: Fascinate (Verizon), Captivate (AT&T), Galaxy S (U.S. Celluar), and Vibrant* (T-Mobile).

In the U.S. the mobile operators carry a lot of weight when it comes to the marketing and branding of mobile phones. Except for the big players (iPhone, Palm (formerly), and Blackberry), the carriers have always been able brand a manufacturer’s device however they see fit. This power dynamic might be a remnant of the time when carriers differed vastly in terms of coverage and pricing, while the phones were all basically the same. (Sure, some flipped and some didn’t. But they all had similar features.) Thus, the consumer purchasing decision was almost always based on the carrier brand and not on the handsets.

(more…)

Tags: cell phone naming, mobile phone naming, phone naming, tech naming, technology names, technology naming
Posted in Brand Naming, Product Naming | 2 Comments

I’m a big fan of using proper grammar. But I’m also a big proponent of keeping up with trends, both technological and vernacular. Thus, when I read about the New York Times banning the use of “tweet” by their journalists, I viewed their decision as yet another way they’ve fallen behind the times and are sticking their heads in the sand.

First let me get this out of the way: I understand the need to adhere to a standard set of grammatical rules. And I respect the tough choices that Phil Corbett, Standards Editor at the Times, has to make.

However, the Times is already under attack for not getting technology. They weren’t quick to capitalize on and adapt to the web. They’re still stuck on an online subscription-based profit model. And they aren’t playing nice with Google.

So, when I read that the Times made a conscious choice to stick to outdated vocabulary when discussing present-day technology, I shook my head in disbelief. The Times should strive to use vocabulary that is relevant and up to date, while still understandable to the general readership. Perhaps they should take it even further and try to advance the public’s knowledge of new words. One of Corbett’s arguments is that not enough of the public knows what Twitter is, much less what “tweet” means. Perhaps the Times should help illuminate and educate instead of shrinking away from uncomfortable language.

“Tweet” isn’t an incredibly difficult word to grok. “Twitter” and “tweet” are both real verbs that mean to make noise, like a bird. It’s not a huge stretch to add a highly related, nuanced meaning to the definition of tweet: To make noise by posting commentary on Twitter.com.

(more…)

Tags: grammar, Language use, New York Times, official language use, technology language, technology naming, tweet, Twitter, verbal branding
Posted in Brand Naming, Fun stuff, Language use, Trademark | No Comments

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

This item was originally published on April 1, 2010 at Fast Company.

I was in a meeting with Vinod Khosla once, about a thousand years ago in Internet time (which would make it roughly 2001). We were discussing how, even then, it was tough to find names for Silicon Valley companies that were interesting and available. I was giving the Catchword speech on trademark availability, and how important it was to avoid choosing a name that was already in use, when Vinod jumped in with “Do you think that when we founded Sun we worried about how many other companies were using that name? We just shouted louder and longer than any of them, and we made Sun our name!”

He had a point. Certain companies have never let trademark law stand in the way of a good name. (Of course, sometimes those companies turn right around and use their legal department like a blunt instrument against other people who have the same idea, but that’s not personal, it’s just business.) In 2007, it seemed inevitable that Apple would call their new device the iPhone, despite the fact that Cisco (via Linksys, and earlier, Infogear) owned a trademark for “IPhone”. That mark had been registered in 1999, giving Cisco a clear right to the name.

Most recently, though, we’ve seen behemoths either shy away from potential trademark conflicts, or get beaten by the little guy. Case in point: Sony’s new PlayStation Move motion controller. Rumors and leaks in early 2010 (most notably by THQ’s CEO Brian Farrell) all but confirmed that the new name would be Arc; Sony even registered “playstationarc.com” and filed for a trademark for “PlayStation Arc” in Japan. But just days before the big reveal at Game Developer’s Conference 2010, new rumors flew fast that Sony was backing away from the Arc name because of Microsoft’s Arc trademark for accessories, including computer mice. On March 9 Sony filed for a European trademark  for “PlayStation Move” in Europe and announced the name the next day.

Why did Sony give up on Arc? It’s unlikely that they thought consumers would be confused; the MS Arc products aren’t hugely popular and don’t have a lot of brand recognition. (In fact, before the PlayStation Arc name was floated, I would have challenged you to find three ordinary people who knew about MS Arc.)  The MS Arc trademark is specifically for “computer mice and computer keyboards”, and the PS Move mark is for “game controllers” and accessories – which from a trademark point of view, are pretty damn different. But trademark examiners are just humans, and the power of the Microsoft brand (and its 5 story building full of lawyers) is not to be trifled with. Sony probably felt that any risk involving MS was just too big to take. One wonders why this wasn’t all settled behind closed doors months ago. Perhaps it was just the case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.

Google, meanwhile, has had its own issues with its Android operating system. They tried to trademark the word “android” in October 2007, but it was rejected for being too similar to an existing mark held by the company Android Data, which was registered in 2002. They went ahead with the name anyway, figuring…what? That Erich Specht, who owns Android Data, would be honored that Google stole his name?

So Specht sued them, to the tune of $94 million in damages. The case is still in motion, and it’s not clear how things will shake out. Google appealed to the USPTO, claiming that Android Data was dissolved in 2004, but they were denied. Another appeal, another denial. Once again, one wonders why this wasn’t all settled months ago…

To add insult to injury, just this month (March 2010) Google was denied the trademark for Nexus One, its Android phone. As with Android, their mark was deemed too close to an existing mark for Nexus, held by Integra Telecom. At the risk of repeating myself, one wonders why….

But it looks like Apple learned their lesson. Fujitsu has been selling a device called the iPAD since 2002, which shared many features with Apple’s iPad product (touch screens, wi-fi, etc.). This time there was no lawsuit: Apple bought the trademark from Fujitsu, just in time for the launch on April 3. Phew! Good move, Steve Jobs! You had me worried for a moment there.

Of course, there are other iPads out there. Will Apple buy the rights to “iPad” from Coconut Grove, a Canadian company that makes bra inserts designed to enhance cleavage? They just might. And then there’ll be an app for that.

Tags: Android, Arc, brand names, iPhone, Microsoft, Move, PlayStation, product names, technology names, technology naming, Trademark
Posted in Fast Company, Product Naming, Trademark | No Comments

The media is awash with criticisms of Apple’s new name: iPad. Now, no one expected the product itself to be a technological flop. Apple just doesn’t flop anymore (well, not for a long time anyway). So the only thing left to criticize is their name choice. (CNN has really jumped on the pad = maxipad bandwagon.) But, are the criticisms well-founded, or are they just grasping at straws?

Most likely you’ve seen the 2006 MAD TV spoof of the iPod:

I think it’s hilarious that some people on the internet think that Apple didn’t know about MAD TV’s spoof. That Apple would launch a multi-million dollar product and not know about every possible issue beforehand, well, that’s just absurd. Apple knew everything. You don’t think that they calculated that into their marketing campaign? C’mon, these guys are marketing geniuses, not marketing novices.

And let’s talk about the word pad for a minute. Is it really a horrible word choice? It’s fairly abstract in the way that pod was when Apple launched that product. And guess what? People hated the name iPod back then too. They were convinced it was a naming flop. And now it’s part of our common vocabulary. (And, let us not forget the Wii, which was critically panned for six months as a ridiculous name, until the product hit the shelves. Now Wii is revered as a game-changer product and product name.)

And, what about all the computer uses of the word pad? ThinkPad, mouse pad, LeapPad, IdeaPad, not to mention pad of paper, legal pad, gauze pad, lily pad, etc. Is it so damning that one of the nearly five billion uses of the word pad is related to women’s menstrual cycles? Are we so culturally grossed out by a woman’s reproductive cycle that we must condemn anything that even connotes vagina? I think the answer might go without saying.

iPad is a perfect name for Apple. It recalls their other global mega-hit, the iPod. What’s more, it’s abstract enough to apply to this elusive product category. It’s not quite a netbook, not quite a laptop, not quite an ebook reader, and not quite a tablet computer. What better way to define a new category than by just giving it a proprietary and somewhat abstract name (a la iPod)?

And to toss out some love to our trekkie readers: It turns out that Star Trek captains and crew have been using tablet/pad computers for decades. Captain Kirk and Captain Picard used pad computers for reviewing reports. And DS9 Captain Sisko even had a tablet computer called a PADD that looked eerily like the new iPad. Hmm, first Star Trek’s communicator preceded flip phones by 30 or so years. Then Star Trek’s pad computers gave way to the iPad. To boldly go, indeed!

To summarize, I think this too shall pass. In six months when people are happily walking around with their iPads glued to their hands, no one will even give the name a second thought. In fact, I might even go so far as to predict that feminine hygiene pads might lose their association with the word pad. It’s a long shot, but you never know, what with the power of Apple’s branding power…

Tags: Apple, Apple names, iPad, iPad name, technology naming
Posted in Advertising, Product Naming | 2 Comments

It makes sense that the granddaddy of social networks would try to prove it was hip with one last hurrah. I’m sure the board of directors or the management team has grand plans for how to make Friendster relevant again. But, there are a few problems with their relaunch strategy.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one likes to use old stuff. Especially old technology. You have an original iPhone?! Ew, gross. And social networks come and go every two years or so, and then fade into obsolete obscurity. Sure, Friendster was the shiznit back in 2003/04. But then MySpace came along and rocked poor Friendster’s world. Then Tribe hit certain areas and had its own little cultish following. Meanwhile Facebook swept in and played the social networking game better than anyone else. To think that Friendster can beat Facebook in the popularity contest is absurd. Ah, but therein lies the juicy nugget. Friendster isn’t trying to beat Facebook. Listen carefully again to the ad.

Okay, now that you’ve watched it again… The first 12 seconds are clearly aimed directly at the heart of Facebook: “plain, boring, too common, too generic.” All the while they show pictures of old people. Yep, that’s Facebook alright. Everyone and their mother is on it, which means no more anonymity for teens. If Jane’s buddy tags her in a picture from last week’s kegger, Mom is surely going to find out. In fact, the average age of Facebook users has been steadily increasing as more parents jump on the bandwagon. Teens are bailing out of what they see as an old, boring sinking ship. So, where are teens doing their social networking then?

That’s right, you guessed it: MySpace. You might have noticed that right after the 12-second mark in the video, the gauntlet was thrown down directly in the face of MySpace. “I want my own space. With my own music. My own look. My own style.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that MySpace’s brand positioning, word for word?! Hell, they even said “my space” in the first sentence. MySpace also lets users customize their profile page and is well-known for being the destination for bands and musicians.

I applaud Friendster for knowing who their real competition is. But, dude. Srsly Friendster?! You just copied your main competitor’s brand messaging. And, you didn’t even do it cleverly. It reeks of “me too.” I’m not hearing anything that would make a teenager want to jump ship from MySpace and start using Friendster… again.

And finally, WTF is up with that stupid new tagline?! Connecting Smiles?!?!?! Are you kidding me? What, are you trying to do, attract the Hannah Montana demographic or something? That tagline makes me think of Pokemon and Polly Pocket commercials. Not Lady Gaga and JZ.

Sheesh. Maybe you should’ve hired a real naming firm to help you come up with your new tagline.

Tags: Friendster, internet company naming, internet names, internet naming, social network names, social network naming, technology naming
Posted in Brand Naming, Branding | No Comments

Barnes & Noble is launching Nook, their new e-book reader this week. Will the Nook unseat Amazon’s Kindle? Only time will tell. What we do know is that the Nook has a color touch screen and allows customers to share their e-books, both major competitive advantages over the Kindle.

But what about the name? We here at Catchword are pretty big fans of Nook. The brand name, of course, refers to a sheltered and secluded place, specifically a reading nook or book nook in this case. The connotations are of a small, personalized, private book reading experience. All good things for an e-book reader.

Also, in contrast to Kindle, the name is shorter (one syllable) and keys on a more personal experience of book reading. Kindle is about the general fervor of reading, whereas Nook is about that unique personal connection book lovers have with their books.

There were obviously other possible messages to explore when naming this product. Naturally, the luminosity, colorfulness, sharing capabilities are all key differentiating features worthy of naming exploration. However, these are also all features that will quickly be adopted by the competitive set. Naming a product after a short-term differentiator is okay when you plan on changing the name when version 2.0 comes out, or if you only plan on a 2-year product life cycle. But, we’re guessing Barnes & Noble is in this game for the long haul. This might be their last best chance to compete with Amazon. Thus, Barnes & Noble appropriately picked a lasting brand name that speaks to the meta concept of books and book lovers.

The only pronunciation or negative connotations we could come up with seemed minor in comparison to the positive features of the name. Some folks might pronounce the name “nuke” as in nuclear. Not too much worry there. And, it’s possible some folks might extrapolate to “nookie.” Again, this isn’t likely. And even if “nookie” does get popular, is there anything wrong with making books a little sexier? (I’m reminded of the common sexy librarian fantasy.)

Overall, we like this new name a lot. We’d love to claim that we created this name, but alas, we cannot. We just hope it doesn’t show up on Lexicon’s portfolio page on Friday. Don’t they have enough famous brand names already? Here’s hoping that one of our other competitors came up with this great new name.

Tags: book names, book naming, Kindle, nook, technology naming
Posted in Brand Naming, Product Naming | 1 Comment

Catchword is pleased to introduce its newest company name: Altegrity. We collaborated with our friends at Corebrand to create this new brand name for the holding company that includes USIS, HireRight, and Explore.

After generating thousands of name candidates and screening hundreds, we found just the name our client was looking for (with an available .com domain to boot). Coined from “all” and “integrity” the new name aptly communicates the breadth and strength of this company. The new look and feel (designed by Corebrand) reinforces the data-driven roots of the company, and plays nicely off the name.

A great collaboration, resulting in a great new brand. In the immortal words of Hannibal Smith, “I just love it when a plan comes together…”

Tags: Altegrity, new name, new name launch, technology naming
Posted in Company Naming, Name Launch | No Comments