I think you can have 3 levels to naming: (1) Bad for one many reasons: Can't be googled. Can't spell it. Wrong associations. Legal/Trademark trouble. These are

I think you can have 3 levels to naming: (1) Bad for one many reasons: Can't be googled. Can't spell it. Wrong associations. Legal/Trademark trouble. These are damaging. (2) Neutral. Most company names are basically neutral. Microsoft, ebay, amazon, google. They may have little advantages (eg google, the verb). They're fine. (3) Good names. These have one or more distinct advantages. Suer memorable. Real good/clever associations. SEO benefits, etc. The difference between 1 & 2 is pretty big. Companies should definitely avoid category 1. It's not so hard. Category 3 is only really useful in conjunction with other things. A name that is easily remembered, spelled and has the correct association is only an advantage if it is said to potential customers. It's helpful, for example if the company does a lot of trade shows/conferences. For what it's worth, I think Twitter is one of the best company names. It helps explain the product, which is hard to explain. I think ebay, amazon, microsoft and most names are neutral. I think a lot of the web 2.0 names are bad (eg Del.ico.us).