Just for pun

I think of myself as a fairly punny guy. Punnily enough, most people in the writing profession don't care much for puns. We think it might have something to do with the fact that coming up with a good pun takes some skill, and they aren't quite upto it. Pokes apart, here's a collection of fine, and not-so-fine, names that pun. Have pun. (Image courtesy, Torontoist. Find courtesy, the NYT Freakonomics blog.)

A box of Godgyfu. Or Godiva?

Definitely 'Godiva'. Sounds better. Much, much better. 'Godgyfu' sounds Japanese. Not that I have anything against the Japanese or anything. It's just that, they're not known for their chocolate-making skills. Surprisingly, it's something they still haven't found a way to take apart and copy.

'Godgyfu' also makes me think of 'Podgyfu'. Not a good memory if you're trying to sell chocolates. Also, 'Godgyfu' is not easy to pronounce. End of 'Godgyfu' story.

'Godiva' wins this one hands down. It makes the sayer open up and say 'aa', always a good thing when you're in the vaguely sexual space of chocolates. 'Godiva' also sounds Swiss, French, Belgian and all those wonderful European places that make the most heavenly chocolate. Importantly, 'Godiva' takes the mouth through the 'o', 'i' and 'a' sounds and when a name makes the sayer utter these most basic, most expressive 'intonations' in a product the reminds people of sex, know this, you're onto a good thing. Unlike in the case of 'Godgyfu'.

Name Wars: Twitter vs Yammer

I Twitter and I quite enjoy it. Luckily for the naming folks at Twitter, they didn't have to fight too hard to put their brand inside my head. They were the first movers.

Were.

Now, they have Yammer for company. Natural question from our point of view: how does 'Yammer' compare with 'Twitter' in the business of name calling?

When it comes to alliteration, Twitter wins with one alliterative letter more. Yes, simply speaking, alliteration is good when you're looking for a memorable name. Or plank to hold forth from. (Like so. Notice the multiple alliterations of 'alliteration'?) On the 'alliterative' front, Twitter is one alliteration more than 'Yammer'.

When it comes to other things, they're remarkably similar. Both are 'er' ending names. Both mean pretty much what they allow people to do with their applications. Both words are verbs. Neither is a portmanteau or a neologism. 'TT' sounds are just as good as 'MM' sounds. And vice versa.

So what makes 'Twitter' a better name than 'Yammer'?

Apart from the product - Twitter is easier to become part of and they have the first-mover advantage. Yammer hasn't, at least for the time being, managed to provide a better version of Twitter to us - it also sounds better ... more personal ... dignified. 'Twitter' makes us think sweet-sounding birds. Yammer, big mouths.

For the time being, I'm staying off 'Yammer'. Because the way the name makes you say it, affects how many people buy into it.

Brand extensions vs Brand new names

For starters, here are some thoughts by some of the world's leading strategy gurus on the value of brand extensions. Keeping that in mind, the next question I'd like to ask is why did Google choose not to extend their all powerful, all knowing brand into the browser space? (Actually, I think they'll end up doing just that without even trying.)

Perhaps Google knows what a powerful brand it is and therefore doesn't feel the need to extend it any further and dilute the existing equity - there's a school of thought that believes most brand extensions only end up eating into the value of the original brand. Maybe the folks at Google weren't so sure of their prospects in the browser space and so decided to hedge their bets by going in for a brand new name for their browser.

In case 'Chrome' fails, brand name 'Google' doesn't end up paying too heavily for it. On the other hand, if it succeeds everyone will remember it as Google's latest killer application. Therefore, the quick conclusion I am forced to arrive at is - and I urge my fellow namer to share with us his take on it - the browser space is a bit different from the other application spaces and needs a standalone brand. Am I right in deducing so?

Browsers are like 'fast moving consumer goods' (FMCGs) that demand a more individual naming strategy, whereas most other Google applications are like Business-to-Business (B2B) offerings that can be named generically and tagged on to the parent brand. Check out how Google has chosen to name some of its other products and do share your conclusions with us.

Fact is, choosing to go with a brand extension or a brand new name is a complex exercise that cannot be explored in full out here. But a richly nuanced discussion on the same can most certainly be hosted. The floor is open.

Name Wars: Google vs Chrome

In a quick post highlighting the launch of 'Google Chrome' and the implications of the name chosen by the chosen ones in the ever-evolving browser wars, my fellow namer is of the opinion that 'Chrome' is not the best of naming choices. That apart, he also mentions a lesser known factoid about 'Chrome' being already used by the programmers at Mozilla for XUL applications. In response to which, here's my point: Does it really matter?

Google could well have called their new browser 'Browser' and it still wouldn't have made much of a difference. The thing about the browser wars is that brand names matter less than brand performance and the company of origin. Which is probably why the guys at Google didn't bother all that much about 'Chrome' also being used by Mozilla and that it doesn't feel warm and fuzzy and the like. As far I'm concerned, people will download and try 'Chrome' only because it is a new browser from Google.

Come to think of it, like 'Google Apps', 'Gmail' and 'Google Earth' - all names that shine the light firmly on 'Google' and brand 'functionality' - the guys at Google should have called their new browser 'Google Browser'. 'Chrome' only ends up leaving people with one more thing to remember. Don't you think?

Note: Somebody else who has spent some time thinking about 'Chrome', quite deeply.