The Pollywog Blog

One of Pollywog’s big differentiators is that unlike other naming agencies, we don’t create meaningless, nonsensical names, even though they would be easy to sell.

Meaningless names are usually available for trademark and often sail through onerous corporate approval processes. There are no meanings to object to, after all.

But going to market with a meaningless name puts any brand at a disadvantage. Instead of alluding to a brand promise and helping to predispose a customer to a sale, a meaningless name requires explanation. Companies have to spend time and money on educating customers to what their brand name means–a ball and chain for any business on the race to profits.

A far more effective brand name connects to ideas that are already in a customer’s mind, because they’re familiar with the word or phrase.

And in our perspective, the type of name that performs most effectively is the evocative name, which uses a metaphor to connect to the brand promise.

Metaphors are rich in meaning. They’re a powerful form of shorthand–and a crucial tool for new brands especially–because they can convey in a single word a multiplicity of ideas and elicit an instant emotional response.

Without being educated on the product’s benefits, I can infer that “Full Throttle” is strong, “Amazon” is huge, and “Blackwater” is dangerous.

The power of metaphors as a branding technique is the result of metaphorical thinking, a process hard-wired into the human brain. At a recent TED conference, professional aphorist James Geary explained how powerful and pervasive metaphors are in language and culture. It’s worth a look:

Today’s New York Times features an expose of brands with fictional or highly embellished histories–what Yale linguist Laurence R. Horn aptly calls “etymythologies.”

Among the culprits: Keds’ “sneakers,” Hershey’s Kisses and Cracker Jack.

Missing from the story is one of my favorite offenders, Jamba Juice. At one time, Jamba Juice asserted that its name was derived from an African word meaning “to celebrate.” The company published this specious claim on its Web site, raising the eyebrows of linguists who wanted to know which of the 1800 languages spoken in Africa was the original source. In Umbundu, “jamba” translates to “elephant.” In Swahili, it means “to fart.”

Further digging revealed that the name originated in a brainstorming session held by the company’s founders. The brand name’s “etymythology” has since been removed from their Web site.

The lesson for branders: Don’t attempt to revise your history. There are too many people on the Web with too much time on their hands, and your little fib will grow into an embarrassing anecdote amplified by the New York Times and hundreds of little bloggers like me.

Sales are brisk for Pollywog-named Scent of the Missing, a new memoir by Susannah Charleson, named by Pollywog and released this month by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Scent of the Missing chronicles the author’s adventures with her golden retriever as members of a Texas-based canine search and rescue team.

Since the book’s release on April 13, Susannah and Puzzle have been making the media rounds, talking to reporters curious about the inner workings of canine search and rescue and remarkable abilities of SAR dogs. Susannah says, “Across a baker’s dozen interviews in the past 10 days, I have been called Suzanne Charleson, Susannah Carlson, Susannah Charleston, and Shewanna Charleson. That said, the book’s title has always been correct.”

Canine search and rescue is a fascinating subject that appeals to a wide swath of readers, and the writing itself is top-notch. But we also know that the book’s title has helped propel its success: We learned that Houghton insiders, when presented with a list of upcoming books to peruse on their Kindles, selected Scent of the Missing because the title intrigued them.

See also the official Scent of the Missing Web site.

Much has been written about Apple’s clumsy introduction of the iPad.

But the hook to this story is not that a big company made a naming mistake. This happens, sometimes in large, visible cases.

Nor is the story about alleged sexism at Apple. While it may be true that Apple’s culture is dominated by males, I don’t for a minute believe that they were unaware of the sanitary napkin connotations.

The real story here is that they didn’t care.

I can imagine Steve Jobs and crew concluding, “So what? They’ll get over it once they experience how great this device is.”

And I admire any company so confident in their products that they’ll bat off criticism of their brand name. It reminds me of Nintendo’s belief in the Wii, and how they weathered all the potty jokes when the product was first introduced.

(In Nintendo’s case “Wii” was actually a great name that deserved to be defended. “iPad,” not so much.)

Apple will survive the onslaught of jokes and criticism, and the iPad will live or die based on the viability of the category it has created. Is there really a gap between the netbook and smartphone–room in the market for a touchscreen tablet computer–or is the iPad superflowous? (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

And even though the brand name will not make or break this product, I must still ask, Why, oh why? As a brand, Apple prides itself on innovative products with the most seamless, intuitive user experience. To reach the level of user insight necessary to create new paradigms in UX, Apple has proven itself capable of living in our skin, of understanding our needs before we do.

Apple should have anticipated the effect of a product name so ripe for ridicule that it jolts us out of the Apple ethos.

In the long run, the blowback from this branding error will likely be minor. But with a slightly more bulletproof brand name, Jobs and company could have avoided the customer’s natural conclusion that, this time, Apple didn’t think of everything.

BEST

1. Ghost

Who would give a new product a name that reminds people of haunting, horror and death? Rolls-Royce bravely did when it introduced the 2009 Ghost. Though the name is likely a nod to the British automaker’s 1906 “Silver Ghost,” it still carries a host of negative connotations–as well as positive ones. And that’s what gives it such impact. This is a car for the unapologetically intimidating, with a ride that’s smooth as mist drifting over a moor. Rolls-Royce calls the Ghost a “powerful presence.” And from a branding perspective, we have to agree.

2. Droid

Verizon licensed this name from the “Star Wars” universe for the cellphone it hopes will lead a rebellion against the iPhone empire. This is the first phone running Android 2.0 (the latest version of Google’s operating system) and the similarity of the names is a mixed bag. On one hand, there’s a powerful link between hardware and software; on the other, it’s a bit redundant. Still, “Droid” was probably worth whatever Mr. Lucas charged. It communicates extremely advanced technology, yet it’s familiar and a little bit cute–it makes the phone seem like a pocket-sized C3PO or R2D2. How could gadget geeks resist?

3. Fling

At 85 calories per serving, Mars’ new candy bar aimed at women promises a brief, mostly harmless indulgence. Summed up by its fitting tagline, a Fling is “Naughty, but not that naughty.”

4. Hunch

This online decision-making tool learns about you through your answers to a series of preference questions. Then Hunch makes suggestions about what you might like–from movies to travel destinations to what you should eat for lunch. The name is apt, human and engaging, and it refreshingly under-promises the service’s accuracy.

5. Shard

Looking like a small, pointy chunk of metal, this new multifunction keychain tool from knife manufacturer Gerber is appropriately named the “Shard.” Though the Shard has no actual blade and is officially airline-safe, the danger implied in the name adds to its appeal and is likely a key factor in the flurry of online chatter from customers who can’t wait to get their hands on the soon-to-be released tool.

6. Envy

Only a laptop as slim, sleek, smart and sexy as this glossy-screened beauty from HP could pull off the name “Envy.” Even Apple may be turning a little green.

7. Fever

The first in a new category of drinks dubbed “stimulation beverages,” Fever claims to enhance feelings of euphoria and even stimulate the libido thanks to its mix of several herbal ingredients. The name communicates excitement and a physical effect on the body, without crossing into the risqué.

8. Thinair

Thinair is a wind turbine with just one blade. In severe weather, the Thinair turbine parks its blade horizontally, with the narrow edge to the wind to minimize damage. We like the slightly mysterious quality of the name and how it communicates the blade’s ability to effectively vanish from destructive winds.

9. Peek

The Peek is a pocket-sized device that sends and receives email and text messages. That’s it. No phone, no calendar, no music, no camera. A device with such limited capabilities needs a proportionately modest name. Suggesting a quick, casual look, “Peek” hits just the right note for customers who don’t want to fuss with complicated hardware.

10. SweetLeaf

Three stevia-based sweetener brands–Zevia, Truvia and PureVia–made our Top Ten Worst Brand Names of 2008 list because of the similarity of their unimaginative, contrived names. So it was nice to see SweetLeaf enter the market this year with a name that conveys “natural sweetener” using–duh!–natural words.

WORST

1. Bing

Is it a cherry? A Crosby? No, it’s Microsoft’s new search engine. Reportedly chosen because it was a one-syllable word that could be used as a verb–a very low bar for such an important brand–“Bing” is equally meaningless in every language. The problem with this type of wholly invented brand name (sometimes called an “empty vessel”) is that it costs a fortune to endow the name with its intended meaning. But if anyone can afford a meaningless brand name, it’s Microsoft. They spent an estimated $80–$100 million on advertising to teach people to “Bing and decide.” Maybe the slogan should have been “Ka-CHING and decide.”

2. iSnack 2.0

When Kraft Australia needed a name for its new cheese and Vegemite spread, they held a contest and received 48,000 suggestions. Their winning pick? “iSnack 2.0.” Never mind that their product is food, not technology, and there was never an “iSnack 1.0.” Apparently Kraft thought they could make their product trendy by referencing a naming convention that originated in the early 90s. After a thorough thrashing by bloggers worldwide who called the name an “epic vegefail,” the product was renamed “Vegemite Cheesybite.”

3. Syfy

In an attempt to secure a trademark and shed its geeky image, the Sci Fi Channel changed the spelling of its name to “Syfy.” Network management reportedly felt hip and cutting edge when a teenage focus group informed them that the invented spelling is “how you’d text it.” But does making a name textable impart coolness? Hardly. Syfy’s reductive and juvenile spelling dumbs it down, contradicting the intelligence of the channel’s core audience.

4. Pre

Palm debuted a highly-innovative smartphone this year and inexplicably named it a prefix: “Pre.” Pre… what, exactly? By itself, “Pre” floats aimlessly, desperate to show its relationship to a concept, any concept. As a brand name, it’s so open-ended, it’s essentially useless. It’s like naming a product, the “The.” On second thought, maybe we shouldn’t give them any ideas.

5. Adamo

A high-design sliver of a laptop, the ultra-thin Adamo was meant to be Dell’s answer to the MacBook Air. The name, however, fails to rise anywhere near the heights attained by Air (which took the #1 spot on our list of the Top Ten Best Brand Names of 2008). “Adamo” is Latin for “to fall in love with.” But to anyone who’s not a Latin scholar, the name looks like the name “Adam” with an “o” at the end–a strong, masculine sounding name that doesn’t fit at all with a laptop whose main features are light weight and a svelte profile. Sorry, Dell, this name is hard to love.

6. Vook

A vook is a new form of media that blends a book with video. Though it confusingly appears in all lower case throughout the product’s Web site, “vook” is the trademarked name for this type of technology. Unfortunately, “vook” lacks punch and makes little allusion to the entertaining, immersive experience we expect a vook really is.

7. Xe

Thanks to its oft-criticized behavior in Iraq, the security services firm Blackwater found their reputation so tarnished that they changed their name to “Xe.” We assume they were aiming for mystery, but like a Northwest Airlines pilot, they overshot by about 150 miles and landed at baffling. Meaningless, unpronounceable and just plain weird, this name may be the perfect cover for a company that wants to disappear.

8. Keas

Former Google executive Adam Bosworth started this online health information and education service, which some experts believe may be a blueprint for the future of healthcare. Which makes Mr. Bosworth’s name choice for the startup all the more lamentable. The name, pronounced “KEE-ahs,” was inspired by the Kea, a species of parrot that Bosworth spotted on a hike in New Zealand. The name is so obscure it’s effectively meaningless, unless you happen to be an ornithologist.

9. The Hut

OMG, what is happening to branding? Pizza Hut is another major player that has adulterated its brand name to make it more textable. Some of their Pizza Hut locations have been renamed “The Hut” as company management experiments with a marketing strategy to toady up to the mobile generation. But these kids grew up on “Star Wars.” Can anyone in this audience hear “The Hut” without thinking of obese, drooling, slug-like Jabba the Hutt? Yeah, that’s appetizing.

10. VIA

Starbucks had a great opportunity to create a fast, exciting name for their first instant coffee. Instead, they chose VIA. We’re not sure what the all-capitals presentation signifies (and based on what Starbucks has said about the name, neither are they), but to English speakers “via” means “by way of”–which is about the most pedestrian of ideas. Even for Italian speakers the name isn’t much better–“via” is Italian for “road.” Here’s hoping the coffee has a lot more flavor than its name.

©2009 Pollywog Inc. All rights reserved. To reprint or reuse this article, please contact us.

Kraft’s most embarrassing and painful new product introduction is now complete. In what has been dubbed an epic Vegefail, its new Vegemite + cheese spread will henceforth be known as “Vegemite Cheesybite.”

More than 30,000 people voted for a winning name by way of online and telephone polling. “Vegemite Cheesybite” received 36% of the vote. In second place with 25% of the vote was “None of the Above”.

Interestingly, according to another online survey, most people think that this was all a PR stunt. Just look at the volumes of free media exposure, they argue. Kraft would have had to spend millions on traditional media to get this much awareness.

But that’s giving the brand managers at Kraft way too much credit. These folks are as risk-averse as they come. It’s inconceivable that they would purposefully unleash such an avalanche of negative attention. After all, they were so afraid of failure that they consigned the responsibility of naming their new product to the customer hivemind.

In my view, this situation is far more likely to be exactly what it looks like. Kraft’s managers were dim and naive, but not mean and conniving enough to have knowingly set poor Dean Robbins–the creator of “iSnack 2.0″– up for humiliation. He’s the one I really feel for.

Turns out the product will remain in Kraft’s Vegemite line, but will be renamed. That’s reasonable.

However, Kraft says that it has culled a short list from names submitted during the contest and will–wait for it–conduct a survey and choose whatever the public tells them to.

Again, instead of evaluating these name options on a set of relevant criteria that affects how well the brand name will perform in the marketplace, they’re just going to leave it to whatever the public likes.

“Rest assured, Kraft’s hands are off it,” spokesman Simon Talbot told the Brisbane Times. “The public can have their say and it won’t have anything to do with us.”

This reeks of “we just want this problem to go away,” but still I’m dumbfounded that a company the size of Kraft would so completely relinquish its opportunity to create this brand.

Although Kraft isn’t saying which names will be voted on, there’s a short list on its Web site with names some believe are front runners:

2ritemite
Golden Mite
Allroundamite
Newumite
Snackmite
Blonde
Ruddymite
Wow Chow
Moo in Mud
Vegemite blonde

If I were Kraft, I’d want this problem to go away, too. But now it appears the company is going to live with this branding mistake for the lifetime of the product.

Kraft announced today that it is discontinuing its new iSnack 2.0 product.

A line extension to Kraft’s venerable Vegemite spread–which has enjoyed decades-long popularity in Australia–iSnack 2.0 had a sad, short life characterized by a one-day fanfare followed by a three-day shower of rotten tomatoes.

Last week, Kraft Foods had proudly announced that its new product–a spread made of Vegemite and creamed cheese–had been named after a three-month, nationwide contest which provided more than 48,000 choices.

The winning name, iSnack 2.0, touched off an immediate worldwide reaction. Widely panned by industry experts and consumers alike, the iSnack 2.0 brand name is a textbook example of how not to do branding.

The problem wasn’t the contest, per se. Good brand names can come from anywhere–including contest entrants. But without a robust, valid means of evaluating name options, managers who are way too close to their brands can’t tell shit from Shinola. And as with any kind of naming contest, there’s a high risk that there may not be any Shinola coming in with the shit.

It astounds me that, in this age of dwindling trademark availability and a glutted brand landscape, some large companies are still having contests to find brand names for their products. Should “the single most important marketing decision you can make” really be left to chance like that? Do they use crowdsourcing to write their marketing and media plans, too?

Doctors bury their mistakes. Advertisers broadcast theirs. And then YouTube makes sure they go viral. How’d you like to be that product manager?

I heard some discussion on a radio show yesterday about the heroes who fight wildfires. Very interesting stuff, and what these “wildland firefighters” do is truly amazing. But I was pleasantly surprised to hear some of the fantastic names that are used for the various types of firefighters:

A Smokejumper is a wildland firefighter that parachutes into a remote area to combat wildfires. A descriptive name that also communicates the drama of the job with powerful imagery.

A Hotshot is a wildland firefighter specially trained in wildland fire suppression tactics. The name arose from often being in the hottest part of fires, but the additional meaning of a “hotshot” as someone who’s particularly good at what they do is perfect.

Within a Hotshot crew, there are some other great names for particular types of crew members:

Sawyers are generally the crew’s strongest, most-experienced members. Obviously, this name is directly connected to the brush cutting that they do, but the connection to Tom Sawyer gives the name another level of meaning that fits well.

Swampers are those who help the sawyers by taking away the brush as it is cut. I don’t get a strong descriptive connection here (though I expect there is one that I’m just not seeing for lack of understanding of the job), but swamp is one of the most fun words to say in the English language and is rich with imagery and connections.

Much of the power in these names comes from the fact that descriptive words related to such extreme job requirements have a lot of inherent impact and memorability. But any name — whether for a firefighter, a product or a company — needs to have some of the elements of power and fun in evidence in these names in order to be effective.

Ironically, the same day I heard about these firefighters, I also heard another smoke-related name on the absolute opposite end of the quality spectrum. What I heard was a radio ad for a product to help with smoking cessation. The product itself is quite interesting. It looks like a cigarette, but is actually an electronic device through which you inhale water vapor with harmless flavoring that tastes like tobacco. Unfortunately, the name they gave it is Smoke Assassin.

The meaning they’re intending is that this allows you to “assassinate” your smoking habit. But the word “assassin” is such an extremely powerful negative that its use for any product is potentially perilous. And when your product’s brand promise is all about improving your customer’s health by allowing him to quit a habit that is known to cause death if left unchecked, “assassin” is a name that could easily put your brand six feet under.

When can a powerful name work against you? When you don’t deliver on its promise. Take this example:

Back in April, Britain’s official weather forecasting service predicted beautiful weather for the upcoming summer season. But instead of using typical language and calling for a “dry and sunny summer,” they used the phrase, “barbecue summer.”

The name resonated with sun-hungry Brits. It conjured images of family cookouts under clear, blue skies. Tank tops and shorts. Days at the beach.

In short, “barbecue summer” did everything an evocative name should do. Too bad the weather didn’t get the memo.

Contrary to forecasts, Britain’s weather has been a soggy mess, and people are mad. They were promised a “barbecue summer,” after all.

The lesson for branders: Use distinctive, evocative language in your brand name for impact and memorability.

Just be sure your brand promise is one that you can always keep.