I love a bad naming brief, if only because it provides an opportunity to open the worm can, before we start squeezing out the creative juice. 50% of a naming job is about strategy and creativity. The other 50% is about good consultancy, good communication, shared objectives and criteria, agreement on the potential hurdles to come and all the other good stuff that turns a blank page in to a strategic naming brief (or at least an understanding of why for now it should remain a blank page).
There is some (oft seen) language that jumps out of a naming brief and some ‘keywords’ that always raise a vermillion flag and should kick off a naming brief discussion. Three examples:
- The mistaken premise: “we are working on the naming and branding now”….there’s an edgy humdinger here. When did the name become separate to the brand creation process? Why does design count as branding and naming does not? Particularly as visual identity may evolve or change over time, but hopefully a name will not. This really matters because a name, what it communicates and how, is absolutely at the heart of any brand.
- The fundamental naming strategy faux pas: “we may consider invented names”…. the “invented name” wall needs a bit of breaking down with a gentle brief axe. On the basis that all names to some degree are ‘invented’, even if they are real and familiar words (with 100% purely descriptive words buying themselves a small exemption here – but the task of creating unprotectable purely descriptive names doesn’t often arrive as a naming brief.) Semi descriptive names? Invented, as these days they tend to draw on composite words or be lightly coined. Associative names? Invented, as they tend to borrow imagery or words from other sectors or vocabulary. Abstract names? Invented by default. Start creating names and we start ‘inventing’. A PayPal is as invented as a Kodak, albeit it scores very differently on the familiarity scale and launch and comms will execute differently.
- The name assessment criteria howler: “memorable and attractive”…. we’ll cut this old friend a little slack, as there are of course some combinations of letters and sonics that just don’t sound very nice (although some ugliness is in the ears of the beheeder to a certain extent). The up-front digestible however is that on day one, when a name is new and unfamiliar, it may well not be memorable and its newness by default may make it seem unattractive. The new arrival to the brand creation party needs to make its naming presence felt over the coming days and may even require the chaperoning of some early design concepts to bring it to life. And a comms budget of course.
The naming brief discussion: break it down, dig, re-frame, sense check against business, portfolio and positioning strategy. Then ideally walk away for at least 24 hours before the creative worm emerges from its can.
