In my experience, brand consultants are a contrarian lot. We agree on very little, right down to the best definition of “brand.” The high-level naming process, however, may be a rare point of consensus: create a brief, generate ideas (often hundreds), shortlist, prescreen, and present. If necessary, repeat.
But as any home chef will tell you, access to same recipe doesn’t guarantee the same results. How do some naming experts and agencies consistently produce strategically sound, legally available, and eminently memorable names?
Based on season one of the How Brands Are Built podcast, during which I interviewed some of the world’s best professional namers, I compiled a list of tips for the naming process. Organized by (generally agreed-upon) naming steps, the list was published as an article on Branding Strategy Insider last week. For reference, here’s the list of steps and tips:
Naming brief
- Include actual names and name ideas in the brief.
- Make sure every decision-maker reviews and approves the brief.
Name generation
- Mix things up: Try naming individually and in a group, online and off.
- When stuck, try distracting yourself, purposely coming up with bad ideas, or naming something else entirely.
Shortlisting
- Get some outside perspective.
Prescreening
- Learn how to search the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) more efficiently.
- Invest in a real linguistic and cultural disaster check.
Presenting
- Show each name in the same context to avoid biasing reactions.
- And please, please don’t present anything you don’t like.
The best namers are the ones who consistently put out great brand names. Their ability to do so is partly raw talent, but it’s also a combination of access to high-quality tools and mastery of easily learned skills. To continue the “home chef” metaphor, think sharper knives and better chopping technique. If you’re looking to come up with great names, whether for your own brand or as a professional namer, you can easily put these best practices, tools, and techniques into practice. I hope it helps you create a brand name you love—but don’t count on brand consultants being able to agree on whether it’s any good.
Read the full article, with more detail and an interview quote for each tip, originally published on Branding Strategy Insider.
Rob Meyerson is a brand consultant, professional namer, and host of the How Brands Are Built podcast. He is also principal and founder of Heirloom, an independent brand strategy and identity firm in the San Francisco Bay Area.
I posted a link to the Branding Strategy Insider article in the LinkedIn Group, VERB, and it’s sparked some debate. This is an interesting and healthy discussion! I think all nine points in the article are great rules of thumb, but every rule has its exceptions. Here are the points being debated and some additional thoughts from me, since I was only able to post a little bit on LinkedIn (due to character count limits):
2. Make sure every decision-maker reviews and approves the brief.
Aaron Hall, Group Naming Director at Siegel+Gale, wrote:
To which Marty Neumeier responded:
And Mark Gunnion added:
Visit the post in the LinkedIn Group to read more of their back and forth. I do believe in getting alignment on the brief prior to generating names, and it’s a lesson I’ve learned multiple times in my career. In other words, I feel I’ve (unscientifically) tested alternatives and keep coming back to this as the best approach. But the brief need not be a formal document, and approval need not be an ink signature. I’m curious how Siegel+Gale does this now (guessing it’s different from when I was there), but to me, a “brief” could simply be a workshop in which some semblance of a shared vision is articulated and maybe some ideas are pushed off the table.
5. Get some outside perspective [when shortlisting].
Aaron Hall again:
I can definitely see situations in which getting an outsider’s POV on shortlisting would backfire and/or be counterproductive. But I also see how failing to do so could be a missed opportunity, in the event everyone working on the project is “too close to it.” Also, “outside” could mean a lot of different things. It might just mean looping in another namer at the agency, or someone in a strategy or creative leadership role at the agency.
Presenting
Aaron also said he’d had success doing the opposite of one or both points under this heading (showing each name in the same context and not presenting anything you don’t like). I’m not sure which point(s) Aaron was referring to, but again, I think all these points are up for debate and there will always be circumstances that call for an alternative approach.
For anyone relatively new to naming or looking to hone their process, this list mostly contains points on which a broad cross-section of naming professionals agree (Siegel+Gale may be an outlier, as Aaron suggests, and whatever they’re doing seems to work well for them given their track record of successful naming work). Other points may serve as reminders or new ideas, even to more experienced namers. For example, conversations with Jonathan Bell, Eli Altman, Shannon DeJong, and others reminded me how useful group brainstorming can be (in the right context) and of the importance of working offline or in various settings to expand creative thinking. Ultimately, I hope anyone doing naming work can come away from the article (and the ensuing debate!) having learned something new or feeling eager to try something different. Thanks to Aaron, Marty, Mark, and everyone else for sharing their thoughts!