‘Brand Name Criteria’ often sits at the top of slide 10-ish in a naming deck. Sometimes it is scrutinised to the nth degree by a client with a genuine interest in naming strategy. Sometimes it is ignored, met by a ‘can we see the names now?’eager creative face. The thing is that our initial response to names often completely ignores these well-intentioned criteria. We all have language, use it, react to it. Our human existence is built on it. Ultimately, no matter how grounded in strategy, a naming process explores the subjective likes and dislikes of the naming peeps initially, then adds the subjective likes and dislikes of the client in response. Finally – poor, poor names – comes the layering on of the Brand Name Criteria.
The problem for the humble corporate or brand name is that it needs to try quite hard to ‘be new’, whist also slotting in to a landscape of familiarity and acceptability and hitting the ground running for its core market (can we still talk about target customers these days or is everyone equal ‘digital space’ game?). Never mind the ultimate arbitrator of all things naming – the Trade Mark Axe of Doom.
In my experience the list of name criteria that kicks off a project is rarely the list that survives until the end. Mostly due to legal obstructions and a hefty dose of subjectivity both pre- and post- legal. I’ve seen a client go from ‘not more than 5 letters’ to snapping up a 5 word strapline for a name without a thought for the checklist. Great stuff, if the name in question is just ‘right’: on-brand, expressing an insight about the consumer or the benefits, supporting positioning, or a shout out for personality. Or if abstract, a credible story and platform to build meaning.
Here’s my list of name criteria I like to work with and name criteria I don’t. It’s a realistic framework, until of course the indefensible occurs and a name pops out that can’t be strategically defended against the criteria. It just is. The world of brands would be poorer without such creative curve balls.
Brand name criteria worth a challenge, or in some cases ignoring:
“Short”– why? (Bar any legal requirements or technical demands from packaging)
“Memorable”– not yet it won’t be
“Accessible”– let’s agree to help people access it
“Likeable”– for you or for your market? (Potentially wholeheartedly disliked at launch in fact. It’s new)
“Distinctive”– from competitors yes. Let’s hold off the distinctiveness (or maybe not) of name type until we see some names
“Easy to say and spell”– yes, important criteria if ‘facilitator’ or ‘plain sailing’ sit at heart of the brand. Otherwise, in the spirit of breakthrough and creative exploration, let’s see where creative takes us. Quirk might be helpful
“Available as a domain name”– lets go with “can be appropriately rendered as a domain name”.
Brand name criteria to love:
“Registrable and protectable as a Trade Mark”in relevant classes and territories – yawn indeed – but no protection, no brand
“Ability to support the brand’s positioning”– hurrah! Not “express”. “Support” is just fine
“On personality”– yes indeed. Tone, semantics, sonic impact
“Credible internally and externally”– think CEO at launch, receptionist test, staff engagement, bar call, industry media, Daily Mail….
“Forward-looking / flexible”– yes sure, if you know or suspect your strategy.
Wander what the all-knowing nAIming bot would say about creative inspiration giving objective criteria a kick in the naming nuts?
