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:

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.

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.

Forget everything you know about naming for B2B—the rules are changing. Five converging trends are having a profound effect on how well brand names perform.

Will your brand have the power to compete in the coming years? How will you know if it’s time to rebrand? If you’re introducing a new brand, what should you know about naming?

John Stucker and Devon Thomas Treadwell, founders of Pollywog, will share how Medtronic and other B2B leaders have created names that succeed in the digital age and how a powerful name can propel the success of your business.

Presentation Highlights:

• Brand Naming through the Ages
• Converging Trends Affecting Naming for B2B Marketers
• What a Brand Name Needs to Succeed in the Digital Age
• Power Names
• Elements of a Power Name
• What a Power Name Does for a Brand
• Is Your Brand Working For You or Against You?

A members-only networking event will be held immediately following the event (9-9:30 a.m.) to discuss presentation highlights.

What: Business Marketing Association, Minnesota Chapter
When: April 20, 2010
Time: 7:30 a.m. Registration and breakfast — 8:00 – 9:00 a.m. Presentation
Where: Metropolitan Ballroom, 5418 Wayzata Blvd Minneapolis, MN 55416

Cost: Members $30 / Non Members $45

Registration link:  https://www.123signup.com/register?id=mzqpv

Register by April 16

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.

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.

The branding world is abuzz today with reactions to AOL’s advanced look at a rebranding campaign, the cornerstone of which is a revamped logo.

AOL said in a press release:

AOL today previewed its new brand identity for its future as an independent company committed to creating the world’s most simple and stimulating content and online experiences.

The new AOL brand identity is a simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images. It’s one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal. The new brand identity will be fully unveiled on December 10, when AOL common stock begins trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

“Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people – employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade,” said Tim Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AOL.

So I gather the company’s positioning (repositioning?) is that it offers “the world’s most simple and stimulating content and online experiences.”

Herein lies AOL’s problem.  Its positioning is neither clear nor focused nor different from hundreds of other information/entertainment services on the Web.

AOL’s brand image is as indelible as any brand’s can be. It rose to prominence as “the Beginner’s Internet.” AOL was a safe and easy way for novices to get used to using the Web.

Those days are over. Like Polaroid, whose name now stands for an obsolete technology, the AOL brand stands for a need that people no longer feel.  Never mind the Time Warner merger debacle. AOL’s halcyon days were certain to come to an end as the universe of users became adept at roaming the Web without AOL’s training wheels.

It’s clear that AOL understands the power of their brand’s heritage, because they retained the idea of “simple” in their brand messaging. But now the company is clinging to the very brand attribute that’s dragging them down. “Simple” is now a best practice in Web IA and design, and most marquee information/entertainment sites are designed so even a novice user can find his way around.

Take a look at the AOL home page. Is it any simpler than, say, Entertainment Weekly, People, or USAToday? I don’t think so. It might even be more complicated than some. Is the content more “stimulating?” Not that I can tell.

If AOL wants to save its brand, it needs to burn its ships like Cortez on the shores of the New World, forget about making “simple” part of its brand positioning–that’s table stakes now–and focus on offering something really different and believable.

“The world’s most stimulating content and online experiences” is neither.

AOL’s biggest problem is that, like GM, the company is still huge, but it’s no longer in the market position to act like a category leader. They need to think like an entrepreneur, who looks for ways to carve out a unique niche or, better yet, create a new category. If they ever found that opportunity, they should dump the AOL name and its associated baggage–burn their ships–so they can launch unfettered and go about conquering this new territory.

But I suspect they will limp along, like Polaroid, continuing to offer a me-too product and being just profitable enough to keep the lights on.

Ground Control towers are the only nonhydraulic wind tower that can be raised and lowered by just one person–for maintenance on the wind turbine, or to protect the turbine from damaging winds.

This technology effectively creates the new category of self-raising wind towers, enabling the expansion of wind energy into new markets: coastal areas vulnerable to hurricanes/typhoons, areas too remote for dealer servicing and small operators everywhere who lack the crew and heavy equipment needed to raise and lower conventional towers.

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.