Archive for the ‘Branding’ Category
Why Weird Words Make Great Brand Names
December 10th, 2009 | 
Author: 
Phillip Davis asked:
When creating a truly great company name, the number one consideration should be the level of “engagement.”
“Engagement?” you ask incredulously.
Yes … engagement.
While there are all sorts of naming strategies… metaphors, acronyms, coined/ invented, key attributes, positive connotations, etc., the one common denominator that separates the mediocre from the memorable is the degree to which the name engages the mind of the consumer. Most new business owners opt for company names that inform and describe, leaving nothing to the imagination. They often fail to realize that the context surrounding the name (the ad, the store sign, the proposal, the brochure copy, etc.) will define what they do, so the name can be free to describe how they do it. In other words, no customer will hear or see the name in a mental vacuum. Yet this is the way we often judge names when “brainstorming.” And it’s why focus groups are such notoriously bad judges of good names. It’s not the people that are flawed, it’s the process itself. Most of the feedback takes the form of free associations, all in an effort to determine if a name is “good” or “bad.” It goes something like this…
Interviewer: “What do you think of the name Monster?”
Respondent: “Ew! They’re scary and dangerous!”
Interviewer: “What about Amazon?”
Respondent: “Jungle … drowning… snakes … piranhas…”
Interviewer: “Apple?”
Respondent: “A bad apple spoils the whole bunch.”
Interviewer: “Caterpillar?”
Respondent: “Squishy, soft, and squirmy.”
Interviewer to new business owner: “I think we can safely assume these would be bad brand names …”
So if it’s not a matter of free associations, then what determines a good name? Again, it’s that all important element known as “engagement.” Engagement is what causes you to lean forward, ask twice, invite more information and pursue the conversation. A good name should invite a discussion, start a conversation and “engage” the other person’s interest and attention. That’s why Amazon, even though it says nothing about what it does, works better than Books-A-Million. Amazon is open and inviting and Books-A-Million is literal and descriptive. Amazon speaks to the process…flowing, easy, abundant. Books-A-Million speaks to the products… books. And while Amazon leaves room for the company to grow in any number of directions, Books-A-Million leaves the company in a bind. I once heard an ad for a company called Just Brakes. Since they had outgrown this narrow niche, they adopted a new tag line … “We’re more than just brakes.”
Let’s take another example. Linens & Things is needlessly redundant since most people, after seeing a newspaper ad, or walking by the store window, will know the company sells linens and things. It would be better to use the name to capture some key strategic position or advantage, or to evoke a feeling or emotion. Is Linen & Things the best, the fastest, the biggest, the most service oriented, the trendiest? We simply don’t know. They have described but they haven’t evoked. They’ve explained but they haven’t engaged.
The objection I routinely hear is “But with names like these, no one will know what I do!” And that’s when I explain that trust is needed… trust in the power of context to fill in the blanks. That way the name is freed to paint a picture, engage the senses and position the brand to reflect not what you do, but how you do it.
So will any weird word work?
No.
Weird for weird sake will just leave the customer scratching his or her head in bewilderment or moving on in indifference. Bold, engaging names will create the desire to know more, and that’s where you need to be ready to tell the story. The name then becomes a segue to a larger story. It starts with the name and tagline and then continues to the :15 second elevator speech and beyond.
One of our clients we named was TKO Surgical. When asked if that’s a boxing reference, our client gives an emphatic “yes,” explaining that they have a mission to both defend and fight for their clients’ needs. They’ll champion their cause and remain in their corner until the last bell sounds. Their tag line? “Technically Superior.”
So whether a name is based on a metaphor, a key attribute, an acronym, or a positive connotation, the overarching goal is to create a name that engages. Perhaps that’s why Albert Einstein asserted, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” If given the choice of engaging vs. informing, opt for a name that begs for more. It may seem weird, but the results can be wonderful.
When creating a truly great company name, the number one consideration should be the level of “engagement.”
“Engagement?” you ask incredulously.
Yes … engagement.
While there are all sorts of naming strategies… metaphors, acronyms, coined/ invented, key attributes, positive connotations, etc., the one common denominator that separates the mediocre from the memorable is the degree to which the name engages the mind of the consumer. Most new business owners opt for company names that inform and describe, leaving nothing to the imagination. They often fail to realize that the context surrounding the name (the ad, the store sign, the proposal, the brochure copy, etc.) will define what they do, so the name can be free to describe how they do it. In other words, no customer will hear or see the name in a mental vacuum. Yet this is the way we often judge names when “brainstorming.” And it’s why focus groups are such notoriously bad judges of good names. It’s not the people that are flawed, it’s the process itself. Most of the feedback takes the form of free associations, all in an effort to determine if a name is “good” or “bad.” It goes something like this…
Interviewer: “What do you think of the name Monster?”
Respondent: “Ew! They’re scary and dangerous!”
Interviewer: “What about Amazon?”
Respondent: “Jungle … drowning… snakes … piranhas…”
Interviewer: “Apple?”
Respondent: “A bad apple spoils the whole bunch.”
Interviewer: “Caterpillar?”
Respondent: “Squishy, soft, and squirmy.”
Interviewer to new business owner: “I think we can safely assume these would be bad brand names …”
So if it’s not a matter of free associations, then what determines a good name? Again, it’s that all important element known as “engagement.” Engagement is what causes you to lean forward, ask twice, invite more information and pursue the conversation. A good name should invite a discussion, start a conversation and “engage” the other person’s interest and attention. That’s why Amazon, even though it says nothing about what it does, works better than Books-A-Million. Amazon is open and inviting and Books-A-Million is literal and descriptive. Amazon speaks to the process…flowing, easy, abundant. Books-A-Million speaks to the products… books. And while Amazon leaves room for the company to grow in any number of directions, Books-A-Million leaves the company in a bind. I once heard an ad for a company called Just Brakes. Since they had outgrown this narrow niche, they adopted a new tag line … “We’re more than just brakes.”
Let’s take another example. Linens & Things is needlessly redundant since most people, after seeing a newspaper ad, or walking by the store window, will know the company sells linens and things. It would be better to use the name to capture some key strategic position or advantage, or to evoke a feeling or emotion. Is Linen & Things the best, the fastest, the biggest, the most service oriented, the trendiest? We simply don’t know. They have described but they haven’t evoked. They’ve explained but they haven’t engaged.
The objection I routinely hear is “But with names like these, no one will know what I do!” And that’s when I explain that trust is needed… trust in the power of context to fill in the blanks. That way the name is freed to paint a picture, engage the senses and position the brand to reflect not what you do, but how you do it.
So will any weird word work?
No.
Weird for weird sake will just leave the customer scratching his or her head in bewilderment or moving on in indifference. Bold, engaging names will create the desire to know more, and that’s where you need to be ready to tell the story. The name then becomes a segue to a larger story. It starts with the name and tagline and then continues to the :15 second elevator speech and beyond.
One of our clients we named was TKO Surgical. When asked if that’s a boxing reference, our client gives an emphatic “yes,” explaining that they have a mission to both defend and fight for their clients’ needs. They’ll champion their cause and remain in their corner until the last bell sounds. Their tag line? “Technically Superior.”
So whether a name is based on a metaphor, a key attribute, an acronym, or a positive connotation, the overarching goal is to create a name that engages. Perhaps that’s why Albert Einstein asserted, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” If given the choice of engaging vs. informing, opt for a name that begs for more. It may seem weird, but the results can be wonderful.
Posted in 
Tags: 
When Weird Works
Dan Goldgeier asked:
Is anyone ever qualified to work in advertising?
I’ve been writing this column for 6 years. But I’m still not sure if I’m qualified to write it.
Such is life in an industry like advertising, where no one, and everyone, is qualified for the job they hold.
It’s no secret that the ad industry is full of misfits. Smart, yes; passionate, yes; but misfits nonetheless. We all belong because we don’t belong. To work in advertising, you don’t need a college degree. And you certainly don’t need some sort of board certification. Imagine if you will, a test to become a board certified AE, copywriter, or media buyer. What on earth would that test consist of?
I bring this up because I’ve been reading more stories, disguised as agency puff pieces, of new hires that have fallen into agency life from some other unconnected job: folks who were stand-up comedians, blues musicians, cruise ship bartenders, roadies, etc. Whatever it is they were doing before, they’re now supposedly ideal for positions in ad agencies.
Our industry embraces a certain degree of weirdness. In America, at least, advertising seems to attract the type of people who want white-collar jobs but eschew typical professions, such as medicine, law or finance. And some of us are would-be artists who sell out to the commercial arts. Consequently, you won’t find too many 1st generation Americans in advertising—doting parents tend to push their high-achieving children to pursue something more respectable.
So it’s not a new idea that advertising professionals have oddball experiences in their backgrounds. What is new is that more and more, agencies are touting those experiences as legitimate qualifications, or even badges of honor, that give outsiders credibility as they become agency insiders. It’s rare to find a profession that embraces people who’ve likely never given it much thought before they landed in it.
Can you truly be born to go into advertising? Can you practice it as a kid? Other commercial arts can engage young people. Take Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino. Both of them, even as small kids, were students of film. They lived it from an early age. Can future ad people do that?
I do believe there are ways to prepare oneself for a career in advertising. But the path isn’t always linear. I graduated from a 4-year university with an advertising degree, and it didn’t help me one bit for the reality of day-to-day advertising agency life. Had I studied more Psychology and Anthropology I’d have been better prepared. Plus a class or two in Animal Husbandry for the days I’ve spent polishing turds.
Why should anyone bother actively pursuing advertising as a career? After all, it’s commonly said of advertising, “Anyone can do it.”
Yes, anyone can do it. And anyone is doing it. Corporations give us millions of dollars to spend, and we turn around and let people who don’t know the first thing about a client spend it.
I’ve seen too many ad people who don’t care much about, or for, their clients. Conversely, I’m especially amazed how few clients know the people who actually do their work. I mean the people who write and art direct the ads, program the websites, and resize the brochures. Maybe advertising is like sausage—you’re better off not knowing how it’s made.
But I wonder if there’s going to come a day when marketers, and ad agencies, start deciding there’s no room for dreamers who do whacked-out work but can’t solve business problems. In an era of shareholder pressure, it seems that no corporation has the leeway to waste a penny—with the exception of CEO pay, of course.
Hopefully, the makeup of this industry will remain somewhat iconoclastic. It makes life more interesting. And that’s why we work in the business. The late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
For ad pros, it seems, weirdness may be the only qualification that’s needed.
Is anyone ever qualified to work in advertising?
I’ve been writing this column for 6 years. But I’m still not sure if I’m qualified to write it.
Such is life in an industry like advertising, where no one, and everyone, is qualified for the job they hold.
It’s no secret that the ad industry is full of misfits. Smart, yes; passionate, yes; but misfits nonetheless. We all belong because we don’t belong. To work in advertising, you don’t need a college degree. And you certainly don’t need some sort of board certification. Imagine if you will, a test to become a board certified AE, copywriter, or media buyer. What on earth would that test consist of?
I bring this up because I’ve been reading more stories, disguised as agency puff pieces, of new hires that have fallen into agency life from some other unconnected job: folks who were stand-up comedians, blues musicians, cruise ship bartenders, roadies, etc. Whatever it is they were doing before, they’re now supposedly ideal for positions in ad agencies.
Our industry embraces a certain degree of weirdness. In America, at least, advertising seems to attract the type of people who want white-collar jobs but eschew typical professions, such as medicine, law or finance. And some of us are would-be artists who sell out to the commercial arts. Consequently, you won’t find too many 1st generation Americans in advertising—doting parents tend to push their high-achieving children to pursue something more respectable.
So it’s not a new idea that advertising professionals have oddball experiences in their backgrounds. What is new is that more and more, agencies are touting those experiences as legitimate qualifications, or even badges of honor, that give outsiders credibility as they become agency insiders. It’s rare to find a profession that embraces people who’ve likely never given it much thought before they landed in it.
Can you truly be born to go into advertising? Can you practice it as a kid? Other commercial arts can engage young people. Take Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino. Both of them, even as small kids, were students of film. They lived it from an early age. Can future ad people do that?
I do believe there are ways to prepare oneself for a career in advertising. But the path isn’t always linear. I graduated from a 4-year university with an advertising degree, and it didn’t help me one bit for the reality of day-to-day advertising agency life. Had I studied more Psychology and Anthropology I’d have been better prepared. Plus a class or two in Animal Husbandry for the days I’ve spent polishing turds.
Why should anyone bother actively pursuing advertising as a career? After all, it’s commonly said of advertising, “Anyone can do it.”
Yes, anyone can do it. And anyone is doing it. Corporations give us millions of dollars to spend, and we turn around and let people who don’t know the first thing about a client spend it.
I’ve seen too many ad people who don’t care much about, or for, their clients. Conversely, I’m especially amazed how few clients know the people who actually do their work. I mean the people who write and art direct the ads, program the websites, and resize the brochures. Maybe advertising is like sausage—you’re better off not knowing how it’s made.
But I wonder if there’s going to come a day when marketers, and ad agencies, start deciding there’s no room for dreamers who do whacked-out work but can’t solve business problems. In an era of shareholder pressure, it seems that no corporation has the leeway to waste a penny—with the exception of CEO pay, of course.
Hopefully, the makeup of this industry will remain somewhat iconoclastic. It makes life more interesting. And that’s why we work in the business. The late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
For ad pros, it seems, weirdness may be the only qualification that’s needed.