If you like inside baseball stories about branding (and what brand geek doesn’t?), check out CIO’s slideshow:
How 10 Famous Technology Products Got Their Names
Brands include iPod, Blackberry, Firefox, Twitter and the Macintosh “big cat” naming convention. Interesting stuff.
The more I hear about Windows 7, the curiouser it gets. In this interview, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is unable to articulate a “major feature” that would entice people to buy it. He alludes to better performance, “cleanup” of the user interface, multi-touch technology, and better information management tools—summing it all up as, “Windows Vista, a lot better.”
Cripes.
So here we have Microsoft planning a “major release” in Windows 7, which is essentially a new and improved Vista. But because Vista was such a dud, Microsoft ran away from the Vista brand name and into the safe, nearly generic confines of “Windows 7.”
This is more than a naming issue. This is a product development problem combined with an unfocused competitive brand positioning.
Tellingly, Ballmer states in the interview that “no Windows release has to have people want(ing) to use it right away.”
There seems to be an assumption (which is likely true) that anyone using the Windows platform will upgrade to a newer release eventually. I suppose if you own 90% of the market share, with a customer base locked into your products by virtue of your technology platform, then you can release major products without a clear brand positioning and a corresponding benefit-driven brand name.
Still. Just seems to me that Microsoft could speed up adoption of Windows 7 if it had a focused brand positioning so that customers can quickly understand what the product offers.
And yes, actually want to use it right away.
The tech blogs may be praising Microsoft’s name for its new operating system, but here in branding land we’re underwhelmed.
“Windows 7″ is a retreat into safe, bland territory a la “Windows 2″ and “Windows 3.1.” And while Microsoft claims “Windows 7″ reflects a return to “simplicity” and is not a version number, you can bet most casual users will think it is (and may wonder what happened to Windows 4-6).
The name is so weak that it’s almost as if Microsoft doesn’t want anyone to notice it—as if they can slip a new operating system into the market that sorta kinda reminds you of their pre-Vista versions but is really better, because hey, it’s a higher number than we’ve had before.
As an operating system, Vista has been universally panned. So certainly Microsoft was right to dump the Vista brand name for its next major release. But instead of regressing into a been-there, done-that naming style, they should have given their next product such a kick-ass name that the passive-sounding Vista would be a distant memory.
More importantly, they should have tied the name to a differentiating brand promise, such as, oh, I don’t know, maybe the transformative user experience made possible through its multitouch technology?
Recently, Microsoft has shown some branding moxie with its “I’m a PC” campaign, which hits back effectively (albeit belatedly) at Apple’s long-running “Mac vs. PC” commercials. So it’s disappointing to see such reticence on the naming side of their branding initiatives.
As a PC user, I can only hope that Windows 7, the operating system, will far outshine its uninspired brand name.
Google has unveiled its new browser, and instead of sticking with its branded-house naming convention (Google Mail, Google Docs, Google Maps, etc.), they’ve chosen to give this offering a bit more kick: Google Chrome.
Web developers have long used the term “chrome” to refer to the browser frame surrounding the content—the toolbars, address window, scrollbars, status bar, etc. While “chrome” is a value-neutral concept, developers have often griped about the amount of screen real estate that the browser chrome consumes. The more screen area the chrome uses, the less there is for content.
So, to a certain degree, there’s a negative aspect to “chrome”. It’s what developers want less of.
In an interview with APC, Sundar Pichai, Google’s VP for product management, explained how the browser came to be called Chrome.
It’s one of the ironic things about the Chrome project actually. We wanted to minimise the chrome in the browser — the bar of the browser window — everything you see other than the web page. The model of the team was “content, not chrome”. So the word “chrome” was used a lot and that was the codename for the project. When we went through our naming exercise, all the alternatives were shot down in favour of Chrome… we tried all sorts of names, but ultimately the team wanted to stay with Chrome.
Argue, if you like, whether Google should have deviated from its branded-house strategy, but from a purely brand naming perspective, Chrome really shines.
Chrome is a great example of a name with layers of meaning. Although there are some negative connotations associated with “chrome” in the minds of Web developers, the word is rife with positive associations for the mass audience of Web users, largely because of its automotive uses. “Shiny.” “New.” “Fancy.” “Extra.” “Smooth.” “Bright.” “Polished.”
Also, it’s a familiar word with instant meaning, and it’s relatively short and easy to spell. As a bonus, within the Web browser category, it’s quite an unconventional and surprising term—least, to a general audience—which heightens its impact.
And as research has shown, the fact that it conjures a concrete mental image makes it more memorable than an abstract or meaningless word. Because it’s memorable and easy to say, it will travel readily by word of mouth. If Chrome performs well as a browser, expect early-adopters to talk it up around the office water cooler, just as they did with Google’s pioneering search engine when it was introduced in the late 90’s.
As a brand name, Chrome’s a winner. And now I’m off to download the browser to see if I can say the same thing about the product.
1. The Electric Fetus - This Minneapolis record store has been around for almost 40 years, which makes the boldness of the name all the more impressive. As is common for provocative brand names, the Electric Fetus name has been roundly criticized. National Lampoon, among others, called it the absolute worst name for a business. Unless, of course, it happens to be the pre-imminent indie record store in Minnesota. For customers looking for out-of-the-ordinary CDs and vinyls, the store’s name effectively says, “Nothing is too weird for us.”
2. Geek Squad - Taking a cue from “Revenge of the Nerds,” Geek Squad proudly owns the pejorative term for someone who’s smart yet socially awkward. But let’s face it-when your computer’s on the fritz, who you gonna call but a geek? “Geek Squad” combines the ideas of technical expertise and on-demand service into a tight, two-syllable name. The use of a disparaging term gives it punch and memorability. Beyond its name, Geek Squad embraces 360-degree branding, maintaining a consistent personality from its funky Geekmobile to its agents’ high-water pants. It’s one of our favorite local brands.
3. Woof Dah - A blend of “woof” and “uffdah” (a Scandinavian exclamation of surprise, dismay or sensory overload), Woof Dah is an absolutely perfect name for a Minnesota doggie daycare service.
4. Wild Rumpus - With a name inspired by the wild things’ dance in Maurice Sendak’s classic picture book, Where the Wild Things Are, this children’s book store in Linden Hills could not be more aptly named. The name beautifully communicates that this is a place where kids can be themselves and have fun, not to mention find some of the best children’s books available. From the kid-sized door-inside-a-door entrance to the bountiful bookshelves to the cats and chickens that freely roam among the customers, Wild Rumpus does not disappoint.
5. Toro - The Toro Motor Company was created in 1914 to make engines for the Bull Tractor Company. When its parent company folded shortly afterward, Toro reinvented itself first as a WWI steamship engine manufacturer, then as a maker of cultivators for farming, and finally as a lawn care expert. It’s been going strong-like-bull ever since. Toro is an early example of an evocative brand name-a name that borrows positive connotations from a word that already has meaning. Spanish for “bull,” Toro evokes traits you want in a lawn mower: power, energy, endurance. Easy to say, easy to spell, short yet loaded with meaning, Toro is a brand name that was far ahead of its time.
6. Flutter - Bridesmaid dress boutique on Lake Street. The word “flutter” charmingly evokes the ruffles and lace of a bridal gown as it floats down the aisle, not to mention the skip-of-the-heart emotion of one’s wedding day.
7. Origami - Opened in 1990, Origami was the Twin Cities’ first sushi restaurant. Origami’s well-chosen name leverages all the positive connotations of the fine art of paper folding. Artful. Delicate. Quintessentially Japanese. It’s an apt metaphor-and an elegant way to introduce Minnesotans to raw squid wrapped in seaweed.
8. Surly - The owners named this Brooklyn Center brewing company for the way they felt when they went to a bar and found it had no “good beer.” It also describes the demeanor of the brand’s many devoted customers when they run out of Surly beer. The name gets points for being extremely distinctive in the beer category, which overflows with dull, descriptive names. The company name also sets the tone for the names of its family of brews, including Furious (a hoppy, fire-hued beer), CynicAle (a Belgian-style ale) and Darkness (a dark-colored Russian stout).
9. The Bad Waitress Coffee Shop- A fun and provocative name for a retro-themed Minneapolis self-serve diner. Customers write down their own order at their table and bring it to the register to pay. The food is then delivered to the table by the diner staff. But water, coffee refills and flatware? Not so much. Customers have to fetch those for themselves. So you are, in effect, your own bad waitress.
10. butter - Could there be a more seductive name for a bakery? The moniker evokes the melt-in-your-mouth pastries and natural, organic foods that have made this South Minneapolis establishment a local favorite.
Some good news out of Paris last week. Internet regulators convened to discuss opening up top-level domains to companies, organizations and governments who can afford to buy them.
For a price tag ranging from about $40,000 to $400,000, you can buy your very own customized dot-name. New York City, for example, could purchase .nyc. Product categories could have their own extension, such as .car, .sports, and .bank. There is already talk of an .ebay extension. Investors could purchase dot-names, then sell the rights to a registrar such as GoDaddy, effectively adding other options of top-level domains to .com, .biz., .net, .info and the rest.
What does this mean for naming? With a sudden, explosive increase in available names, maybe the cachet around the prima facie dot-com name will finally begin to fade. Speculators who have been hoarding domain names may well be forced to lower their asking prices, as businesses find prima facie versions of their names available with a new extension.
With so many extensions available, predicting an URL for direct input into a browser will be more and more difficult for users. The current trend of navigating the Web via search, rather than direct URL, will become nearly universal. This, too, will decrease the need for a prima facie dot-com name.
And, God willing, we will see an end to nonsense Web 2.0 domain names. If suddenly more domain names are available, there will be no excuse for choosing a brand name based on what URL you could buy for $8.95 at GoDaddy.
Of course, you still have to find an available name that can be trademarked, but at least this will make the domain name piece of the naming puzzle a whole lot easier.
The reliably clear-thinking Laura Ries goes off on a tear in her blog today over the positioning and naming blunders of the company that makes her favorite athletic shoe. MBT shoes are a classic example of a marketing myopia. It’s a condition found in clients who are far too close to their own product–and by close, I mean not only too immersed in the product’s most minute details, but also truly madly deeply in love with it.
As a result, they’re unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices in messaging that lead to a focused positioning. Positioning is the art of sacrifice. Effective positioning requires a crystal clear, single-minded, simple idea. MBT’s “Physiological footwear” ain’t it. Ries suggests, “Makes every walk a workout.” Much clearer, dontcha think?
Regardless of the complexities inherent in any product or service, its message needs to be simple. Creating a brand name is the acid test of the clarity of product’s positioning. If a positioning is too broad and/or complex, you will never get to a strong brand name.
The company that makes “physiological footwear” named itself Masai Barefoot Technology, which is so long and cryptic that it was shortened to MBT, effectively stripping away all meaning from the name.
As Ries says, it’s a great product. But between the brand’s ineffective positioning and terrible name, the loss of potential brand impact is incalculable.
All because they were too close and too in love.
The UK’s Daily Mail reports “More parents using txt language to make their child’s name gr8.”
Abbreviated versions of traditional Christian names are appearing on birth certificates along with “original” ways of spelling which even include punctuation marks.
Anne has been changed to An, Connor to Conna and Laura to Lora.
There were reportedly six boys who were named Cam’ron instead of Cameron, and according to the online parenting club Bounty, one girl born last month was born Flicity.
Child development experts aren’t happy about it. University of California psychology professor Albert Mehrabian says that deviating from conventional spelling when naming your kid carries some risk: “Unconventional spelling connoted less masculinity for men and less femininity for women [and] more anxiety and neuroticism were attributed to those with less common names.”
The article attributes the wacky SMS spelling as an extension of the trend started by celebrities toward “original” baby names. Bounty spokesman Pauline Kent explains:
“Some of these new and different names are a way for parents to give their children a unique identity.
“It is similar to the thinking that goes in to naming a new brand of product for example - something to make them stand out from the crowd.”
Maybe so. But a can of peas with a stupid brand name won’t be seeking psychotherapy 30 years from now.
The Ford Fiesta is making a return to the American market. Company officials announced that a new version of the Fiesta, which has been selling well in Europe, Asia and Latin America for the past 30 years, will be launched globally within the next two years.
And in a move that has some Ford execs nervous, the car will have the same name in every country, rather than allowing regional marketing teams to develop names that leverage the local culture.
Ford is going for efficiencies, despite the risks associated with the one-name-fits-all approach.
The company needs just one logo for ads, one set of nameplates for products; and online content and film for TV commercials can be shared. Branding experts say using one name can save a business tens of millions of dollars a year in marketing costs.
“Branding experts” also say it’s expensive and difficult to change a negative brand perception. But that’s what Ford is up against here in the States.
When Ford introduced the Fiesta in the U.S. in the late ’70s, though, the car was so unpopular it was pulled from the lineup after two years. Recently, some of those questioned in focus groups said “Fiesta” sounded cheap.
Yes, that’s how I remember it, too. It was right in there with those boxy little Chevettes, Vegas, Pintos and the rest of their ilk–Detroit’s late-in-the-game answer to our collective shock when gas prices rose to A DOLLAR A GALLON late in the decade.
Granted, today’s Fiesta looks nothing like the uninspired model from the 70’s–and it had better not. The new Fiesta had better be as differentiated as possible from the Fiesta that many Americans still think of as “cheap.” And Ford would do well to market this Fiesta to an audience too young to remember the first one.
It’s a gamble. Will Ford save enough in marketing efficiencies to cover the costs of the full-barrel PR and advertising blitz needed to re-map the Fiesta brand name to this (hopefully) superior car?
And even if a younger audience doesn’t remember the first Fiesta, is the “Fiesta” name itself cool enough to attract them?
We’ll see if this Fiesta lasts longer here the second time around.
Powered by WordPress | ©2008 Pollywog, Inc.