5 ms·

Yes, names matter a lot. Being that a name is a basis for a brand, and building the right brand is a core of building a successful business, you can not underes

Yes, names matter a lot. Being that a name is a basis for a brand, and building the right brand is a core of building a successful business, you can not underestimate it. Two of my favorite naming examples are Dropbox and GoPro, both manage to be memorable, succinct and convey a clear purpose without being cheap, literal or generic (e.g. "ShareAnywhere"). I'm sure these names helped the brands get to where they are.

tptacek 13y ago
Unless you adopt a definition of the term "brand" that is so general as to be useless, building the right brand is not the core of building a successful business; that is the kind of thing a PR firm would say. For every Dropbox, there's a Heroku.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Possibly the opposite. A successful business turns into being the right brand? As one example, I can't think of a more generic name than Southwest Airlines, but somehow they've managed to brand themselves as the fun airline. With a little more effort, I'm sure even better examples could be identified. Coca-cola? McDonald's? Meaningless names.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - phenol 13y ago
    Just playing devil's advocate here, but are you sure that the same sort of start-up culture pervaded the industry when these single-letter-NYSE companies formed (some over a century ago)? Don't you think that the presence of mass media (specifically internet presence) has greatly changed the importance of a name?
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      Yes and no. Look at magazine ads from the 1920s. No shortage of awesome sounding names peddling crap. same sort of start-up culture pervaded the industry I'd say that's the problem right there. Shouldn't the importance of a name be relevant to the customers and not the founders? :)
- flyinglizard 13y ago
  While we can debate on whether a strong brand precedes or is a product of the success of the business, there's no denying this is the main barrier blocking competition. Both GoPro and Dropbox have strong competitors that are fended off by the brand. This is especially important in the consumer space (when you buy a GoPro you don't just buy a camera, but buy into the whole extreme filming experience). There are other comparable cameras, but consumers don't even bother researching them. They buy the brand. This is why GoPro is a $2.5bn company today; Panasonic or Sony could have made the same product with typically obscure naming (XVH-800 whatever) and it would have remained just a niche thing. People are buying an experience no less than they buy utility, and branding is core to that. I do look at branding in a very wide sense; to me GoPro's branding starts with the name, continues with their sponsored videos and ends with the product packaging and store display.
- Alex_Jiang 13y ago
  I think where this might fork a little is consumer vs enterprise. Dropbox is meant to be understood by a much wider audience than Heroku. For a consumer facing company being easily understood makes you much more accessible to many more consumers. It also makes your service more memorable when your name is: simple, appropriate, and conversation-optimized. "I'll put it in the Dropbox tonight." If you treat this as an equation, you want to increase: % of people that 'Get' what you do (off the bat), and % of instances people can easily recall your name, the next time they have that problem you solve.
  - mjn 13y ago
    I'd be interested in any kind of study that demonstrated that rigorously, but I'm pretty skeptical by default. Most consumer brands I can think of are completely meaningless taken on their own, and to the extent they mean anything, it's not even the right thing. What does a "Wal" Mart sell? What do I buy at a "McDonald's"? IKEA?! Is "Siemens" a German condom company? Is a "Safeway" a shelter for victims of violence?
    - Alex_Jiang 13y ago
      http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/1995-working-papers/12-1995-creating-effective-brand-names.pdf http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/199... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296304001602 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296304... Consequently naming is not the end all be all of branding. But studies have shown that a name's: connotations, imagery, and ability to generate "top of mind awareness", has proven to generate equity and favorably move a company upwards in consumer preference ranking. This may be diluted at when a company reaches a certain critical mass. But consider this: Why wouldn't you want a name that's expressive to: who you are, and what you do as a company? It makes you much easier to remember and talk about. If you search brand name in google scholar there's many more interesting studies on this subject. tldr: It's not everything but it certainly helps.

tptacek 13y ago

Unless you adopt a definition of the term "brand" that is so general as to be useless, building the right brand is not the core of building a successful business; that is the kind of thing a PR firm would say. For every Dropbox, there's a Heroku.

tedunangst 13y ago
Possibly the opposite. A successful business turns into being the right brand? As one example, I can't think of a more generic name than Southwest Airlines, but somehow they've managed to brand themselves as the fun airline. With a little more effort, I'm sure even better examples could be identified. Coca-cola? McDonald's? Meaningless names.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- phenol 13y ago
  Just playing devil's advocate here, but are you sure that the same sort of start-up culture pervaded the industry when these single-letter-NYSE companies formed (some over a century ago)? Don't you think that the presence of mass media (specifically internet presence) has greatly changed the importance of a name?
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Yes and no. Look at magazine ads from the 1920s. No shortage of awesome sounding names peddling crap. same sort of start-up culture pervaded the industry I'd say that's the problem right there. Shouldn't the importance of a name be relevant to the customers and not the founders? :)
flyinglizard 13y ago
While we can debate on whether a strong brand precedes or is a product of the success of the business, there's no denying this is the main barrier blocking competition. Both GoPro and Dropbox have strong competitors that are fended off by the brand. This is especially important in the consumer space (when you buy a GoPro you don't just buy a camera, but buy into the whole extreme filming experience). There are other comparable cameras, but consumers don't even bother researching them. They buy the brand. This is why GoPro is a $2.5bn company today; Panasonic or Sony could have made the same product with typically obscure naming (XVH-800 whatever) and it would have remained just a niche thing. People are buying an experience no less than they buy utility, and branding is core to that. I do look at branding in a very wide sense; to me GoPro's branding starts with the name, continues with their sponsored videos and ends with the product packaging and store display.
Alex_Jiang 13y ago
I think where this might fork a little is consumer vs enterprise. Dropbox is meant to be understood by a much wider audience than Heroku. For a consumer facing company being easily understood makes you much more accessible to many more consumers. It also makes your service more memorable when your name is: simple, appropriate, and conversation-optimized. "I'll put it in the Dropbox tonight." If you treat this as an equation, you want to increase: % of people that 'Get' what you do (off the bat), and % of instances people can easily recall your name, the next time they have that problem you solve.
- mjn 13y ago
  I'd be interested in any kind of study that demonstrated that rigorously, but I'm pretty skeptical by default. Most consumer brands I can think of are completely meaningless taken on their own, and to the extent they mean anything, it's not even the right thing. What does a "Wal" Mart sell? What do I buy at a "McDonald's"? IKEA?! Is "Siemens" a German condom company? Is a "Safeway" a shelter for victims of violence?
  - Alex_Jiang 13y ago
    http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/1995-working-papers/12-1995-creating-effective-brand-names.pdf http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/199... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296304001602 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296304... Consequently naming is not the end all be all of branding. But studies have shown that a name's: connotations, imagery, and ability to generate "top of mind awareness", has proven to generate equity and favorably move a company upwards in consumer preference ranking. This may be diluted at when a company reaches a certain critical mass. But consider this: Why wouldn't you want a name that's expressive to: who you are, and what you do as a company? It makes you much easier to remember and talk about. If you search brand name in google scholar there's many more interesting studies on this subject. tldr: It's not everything but it certainly helps.