I’m always bemused by corporate America’s faith in Latin roots–as if these meanings are burned into customers’ DNA and, if people just thought about it (which they don’t), they’d get what their brand name means.
Microsoft is just the latest to fall into this trap. They recently completed a renaming project around their healthcare information technology. Originally purchased in 2006 as “Azyxxi”, the product is now called “Amalga.”
Microsoft health unit general manager Steve Shihadeh said in a statement. “Microsoft’s Amalga products offer proven solutions that bring together information from across the health care enterprise into one, easily accessible view. In fact, the name ‘Amalga’ is based on the Latin word ‘amalgama,’ meaning to bring together different elements.”
On the other hand, if people do have a vague understanding of Latin roots, how many see “mal” in the middle and associate it with “bad” or “sick?”
Live by the sword, die by the sword, people. Why not create a brand name using words from a living language actually spoken by your customers?
This is a disappointing development, given the promising mini-trend of better brand names from Microsoft: Silverlight and Popfly.
Excellent point. There’s another reason Amalga’s a bad name: it names a feature (bringing together blah blah) rather than a benefit (what does it do for me? how will it improve my life? how does it make me feel?). That’s why Silverlight and Popfly succeed: they’re evocative rather than descriptive. I wrote about a similar problem with an accounting firm that renamed itself Accretive Solutions. Sure, it MEANS “gradually built up,” just like a merged company, but who cares? Not to mention the fact that “accretive” sounds pathological, like something gastric. Or even amalga-gastric.
When the CNET news team heard about Amalga, they said it reminded them of “amoeba” and “neuralgia.” And to me, “Accretive” sounds like “secretive,” as in something that secretes. You plant a wide minefield when you create a name out of morphemes, as people will leap to unpredictable sound-alikes that can be inappropriate and embarrassing.
Which is another reason why evocative names are superior, as you mentioned, Nancy. They come with inherent, largely predictable meanings for people to connect with. That’s where you want them–thinking about the positive associations in your brand name rather than conjuring up sound-alikes because the name means too little on its own.
correct me if i am wrong, but isn’t a “popfly” something that runners in baseball players are commonly caught out on?
And is “silverlight” not evocative of the term “silverfish”, a common houslehold infestation?
my point being if you are going to seek out arbitrary associations you will find them.
If you’re seeking them out, sure. But most consumers, when given a word in a brand name that means something to them, don’t stretch to make it mean something different. “Popfly” to me is a quick play–which works well with the mash-up service by that name. (Whether a popfly is good or bad depends on whether you’re hitting it or catching it.) “Silverlight” = silverfish? Hmmm… That’s really a leap.. Silverlight has always made me think of moonlight, and given that strong visual connection, I’ve never needed to seek out other arbitrary associations.