Orissa is now 'Odisha'

For more reasons than one, this is a better name. For one, it's easier to spell. For two, the 'd' in the middle gives it a nice point of emphasis stronger than the earlier 'r' and for three, 'Odisha' is how the people of Odisha pronounce 'Orissa'. So it makes sense. (Names are more memorable when spelled the way they sound. ex: Orissa v/s Odisha.) Incidentally, Oriya is now 'Odia', which in my opinion is not as memorable as 'Oriya'. (It's complicated and can be explained only in an elaborate Powerpoint presentation.) All said and done, what do names, and name-changes, like Odisha, Chennai, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai say about the principles of naming? Think about it.

Where to check your domain names

If you've thought up a name, and want to check if some one's taken it or not, don't go anywhere near GoDaddy.com, Networksolutions.com or Instandomainsearch.com. I have a reason for it. What these sites do is, they block the dotcom the moment you key in the name. They do it quietly, without your knowledge, using some goddamn bot. So initially, the result will show 'dot com available'. After an hour or so, when you search, you might just discover, it's been taken. Now these sites claim that they are blocking the names for your own good. But I don't see it that way. I think it's very unethical to block some one else's domain names without an explicit declaration. It's akin to intellectual property theft. That's why you must be smart whenever you wanna check names. Visit Net4domains or Domain299. These guys are not evil. They don't book the name behind your back. They book it, only when you place the order. That's why they have my vote.

Remember how people remember

If this is how people who have to memorise new stuff ever so often help themselves remember names, and faces, it's something people entrusted with the task of coming up with memorable names would do well to remember. In simple English: If you know what people do to remember, you'll find it easier to come up with things people will remember. Umm ... ok, maybe the English wasn't so simple. Still, you get the drift.

Gyaanama: Marty on Brand Names that Zag

The author of Zag and Brand Gap has some very strong views on what constitutes a strong name. He's of the view that a Strong name should be:

1. Differentiated. It should stand out from competitors’ names, as well as from other words in a sentence. This is sometimes called “speech-stream visibility”, the quality that lets the eye or the ear pick out the name as a proper (or capitalized) word instead of a common word.

2. Brief. Four syllables or less. More than four, and people start to abbreviate the name in ways that could be detrimental to the brand.

3. Appropriate. But not so descriptive as to sound generic. A common mistake is to choose a name that doubles as a descriptor, which will cause it to converge with other descriptive names. Actually, a strong brand name can be “blind”, meaning that it gives no clue as to its connection with the product, service, or company it represents, yet still “feels” appropriate.

4. Easy to spell. When you turn your name into a spelling contest, you introduce more confusion among customers, and make your brand difficult to access in databases that require correct spelling.

5. Satisfying to pronounce. A good name has “mouthfeel”, meaning that people like the way it sounds and are therefore more willing to use it.

6. Suitable for “brandplay.” The best names have creative “legs”—they readily lend themselves to great storytelling, graphics, PR, advertising, and other communications.

7. Legally defensible. The patent office wants to make sure that customers are not confused by sound-alike names or look-alike trademarks. A good name is one that keeps legal fees to a minimum.

He illustrates his points with some valid examples. Go here to take a peek.

Gyaanama: Steve Baba on Domain Names

The name Steve Baba has something going for it. It makes him seem like a realised soul with a 10-foot blonde beard and a 10 mega watt aura. Jokes apart, Steve is a Ph.D in Economics and the reason why we've featured him in Namasutra is his free and very handy ebook titled How to Select and Buy an Elite Domain Name. The book makes some interesting observations. Sample these extracts:

A domain name can either make you look like a fly-by-night email spammer or an established company. A company with a domain name like AmericanWidgetsOnline.net, tells people that they could not obtain the .com, could not obtain AmericanWidgets.com or American.com.

Generic names such as Hotels.com are not entitled to any trademark protection. Ownership of the .com name can only prevent people from using the same exact domain name. Others can use Hotels.NET, Hotel.com (singular) and so on. On a positive note,
since no one owns generic names, trademark lawsuits are unlikely.

When buying a used car, one could look in the paper for the prices of similar cars. There are publications summarizing the price of used cars. Both buyers and sellers know the prices of similar cars. In contrast, a domain name speculator is comparing your offer with what he thinks someone may offer him in the future. This is often
optimistic, wishful thinking. A speculator may have read that a domain name sold for $100,000. But this is like a beginning novelist hearing that another novelist earned $100,000 and expecting the same, when most novelists get a tenth of that if anything.

Amateur do-it-ourselves naming often leads to discovering "fool's gold" domain names. "We found this great name, and it was free." This reminds me of someone who had his wife make his TV commercial for free, but wasted $100,000 broadcasting the third-rate commercial. An inferior domain name is a drag on all your other efforts.

Assume that you are only going to spend $1,000 to $5,000 for a domain name. If someone else had trademark rights to the name – in a different industry – and really wanted the domain name, they should have been able to obtain the domain name by paying the same $1,000 to $5,000. Or they could use a legal procedure to recover the name from a cybersquatter for $1,000-$5,000. One would assume that no other trademark owner wants the domain name, but this is only an assumption. But as long as you have legitimate trademark rights for one industry, another trademark owner in a different industry can’t take the domain name from you.

If a great domain name compared to a good domain name will increase sales 2% and the margin is 50%, then a great domain name is worth 1% of sales.

Piqued enough to read more? Go here.

Sound barrier

Was reading my fellow namasutrist's (?) most informative find on material names, the preceding one, when I had this epiphany of sorts. I haven't researched it all that much, hardly actually, but I have a theory on names, which needs more than a bit of time to prove. (And perhaps a lot less to disprove.) Still, I'm going to put it out for those of you who care enough to think about these things. Take a nuther look at these names (I've aligned them into two categories for the purposes of my fledgling theory): in the first corner we have Lycra, Velcro, Tyvek, Formica, Kevlar, Spandex and in the other corner Teflon, Nylon, Cellophane, Styrofoam, Tweed, Linoleum. Maybe it's not that obvious, but put very, very simply what I'm saying is this: 'Hard' sounds like, for instance, 'k' suit a particular kind of product better and soft sounds, like 'ph', for instance, work better for another kind of product. Moving forward, the next time you visit a 'fine dining' resto, yeah, those places where they give you very little for way too much, look carefully at the menu card. I'd be surprised if you found too many dishes with 'hard' sounds in their names. Next, go to a hardware store. There's a distinct likelihood you'll find more 'hard' sound names there. The human mind attaches certain product qualities to the sounds built into a brand name. A brand name that doesn't consider these aural quirks of the brain, trained perhaps to feel this way over years of brand-naming, will be attempting to fight an uphill battle to make an impression. My hypothesis is certain sounds make more sense for certain product categories. Perhaps it's a naming theory someone might find worthwhile to research and debunk. It involves a far bit of research all right. Something I'm too hard-pressed to undertake gratis. (What to do, we all have our day jobs that take up the majority of our time.) Image from here.

Gyaanama - Material Naming

Lycra, Velcro, Teflon, Tyvek, Nylon, Cellophane, Styrofoam, Formica, Tweed, Linoleum, Kevlar and Spandex - they don't sound like puppy names, do they? There's a technical ring to it. Why have people named Velcro as Velcro? Why not Zipnot? Peter Karlen of Neonym dissected this very issue in a lovely piece for Brandchannel. Digest it if you want some raw material on naming materials.

The Big S

Doesn't roll of the tongue quite as easily as the 'Big B', does it? My point precisely. Well, not quite mine but kinda connected to the point I'm about to make. Those of you who have read 'Freakonomics' by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner might recall what this post is about to shine the light on: How much do baby names impact their chances of success later in life. And those of you who haven't might feel inclined enough to read this fascinating old piece from Slate that I unearthed while exploring for material on the said subject matter. Speaking of which, I wonder how much farther I might have gone had my mother chosen to name me 'Übermaniam'. Not very, I'm sure. The weight of expectations, and the umlaut, would have been just too much to bear. (And spell.) As it is, 'Avinash' is a lofty enough branding to live with. That said, it does make for a good story to tell the few people who bother to ask me what it means. And when they, rarely, do, I promptly proceed to saddle them with not just what it means but also why I was 'Hindued' so. Tell me about it. No, actually, ask me about it and I'll tell you.

Frank 'Lefty' Rosenthal and other gangster names

I'm a huge fan of gangster names. (Don't ask why.) The reasons, if you still insist on asking me, are pretty obvious. What's not to like. They're distinct, they communicate the unique quality about a particular gangster and they make you smile. Attributes that are eminently useful to have in a brand name. Shown here, Frank 'Lefty' Rosenthal and his sisters. (Yeah, right.) He died recently. Here's a bit about him: 'GAMBLERS usually go on until they have run out of both luck and money. Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal went on until he was blown up. But then Lefty was not your usual sort of gambler.' For more on Lefty and his exploits, read the rest of his obituary here. Meanwhile, Googleji and myself have unearthed some links on what makes for a good gangster name. (You'll find them all at the end of this post.) They're instructive in that most of the qualities that go into making a good gangster name apply to product brand names too. Jokes apart, you could learn a thing or two about brand names from gangsters. And us. (Picture courtesy Getty Images.) Link love.

Names on your mind

'It is what every advertiser would have dreamed of - brand names have a unique impact on our brains. Brand names engage the "emotional", right-hand side of the brain more than other words, new experiments suggest. And they are more easily recognised when they are in capital letters.' More such gyan on how brand names affect our brains can be found in the rest of this quite old, but immensely fascinating, article from the New Scientist.

Obviously, this business of naming is a lot more serious than some of us would like to believe. So the next time you ask us to come up with a brand name, think of what it does to your brain. Not pocket. (Image courtesy)

Names with memes

One of the theories I've been quite influenced by is that of 'The Selfish Gene', popularized by Richard Dawkins. (Yes, the engaging intellectual, militant atheist and fascist 'Darwnizer') (Darwin+Sermonize). In that he talks about memes. Put simply, memes are stories. And names that come with a story attached to them can add or take away from the equity a brand lends to a product is something I have been saying for sometime now.

Here's a rather more involved take on the same thing, said differently: "When children acquire the name “George Washington” they typically acquire the associated descriptions “first president of the U.S.”, “man who had wooden teeth.” When they acquire “Santa Claus” they associate with the name “jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole” or “man who brings presents on Christmas day.” The negative existential “Santa Claus does not exist” expresses no literal truth. Still it pragmatically imparts truths: truths such as that there is no jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole and wears a red suit or that there is no one who brings presents to the world’s children on Christmas Day. These things, though not literally semantically expressed by the negative existential sentence, are true." More such absorbing insights can be found there.

Extract Ctrl x, Ctrl v'ed from: 'Names That Name Nothing' by Frederick Adams. Professor of Cognitive Science & Philosophy, University of Delaware.

A Name That Helps by Claude Hopkins

Ad man Claude Hopkins wrote this piece, way back in 1923, in his book Scientific Advertising. While you may not subscribe to his views entirely, read it out of respect for a great advertising mind...

"There is great advantage in a name that tells a story. The name is usually prominently displayed. To justify the space it occupies, it should aid the advertising. Some such names are almost complete advertisements in themselves. May Breath is such a name. Cream of Wheat is another. That name alone has been worth a fortune. Other examples are Dutch Cleanser, Cuticura, Dyanshine, Minute Tapioca, 3-in-One Oil, Holeproof, Alcorub, etc. Such names may be protected, yet the name itself describes the product, so it makes a valuable display. Other coined names are meaningless. Some examples are Kodak, Karo, Mazda, Sapolio, Vaseline, Kotex, Lux, Postum, etc. They can be protected, and long-continued advertising may give them a meaning. When this is accomplished they become very valuable. But the great majority of them never attain that status. Such names do not aid the advertising. It is very doubtful if they justify display. The service of the product, not the name, is the important thing in advertising. A vast amount of space is wasted in displaying names and pictures which tell no selling story. The tendency of modern advertising is to eliminate this waste. Other coined names signify ingredients which anyone may use. Examples are Syrup of Figs, Cocoanut Oil Shampoo, Tar Soap, Palmolive Soap, etc. Such products may dominate a market if the price is reasonable, but they must to a degree meet competition. They invite substitution.

They are naturally classified with other products which have like ingredients, so the price must remain in that class. Toasted Corn Flakes and Malted Milk are examples of unfortunate names. In each of those cases one advertiser created a new demand. When the demand was created, others shared it because they could use the name. The originators depended only on a brand. It is interesting to speculate on how much more profitable a coined name might have been. On a patented product it must be remembered that the right to a name expires with the patent. Names like Castoria, Aspirin, Shredded Wheat Biscuit, etc., have become common property. This is a very serious point to consider. It often makes a patent an undesirable protection. Another serious fault in coined names is frivolity. In seeking uniqueness one gets something trivial. And that is a fatal handicap in a serious product. It almost prohibits respect. When a product must be called by a common name, the best auxiliary name is a man's name. It is much better than a coined name, for it shows that some man is proud of his creation. Thus the question of a name is of serious importance in laying the foundations of a new undertaking. Some names have become the chief factors in success. Some have lost for their originators four-fifths of the trade they developed."

Gyaan: Do numbers work as brand names?

Chris Garnell explored this issue in depth in 2005. He's rightly identified that numbers give you that zara hat ke aura and nothing more. I am a staunch advocate of alphanumeric names. I feel a word prefix breathes life into a cold number. Take Elle 18 for instance. It evokes a lot more the plain numerical name 18. Anyways if you wish to weigh the pros and cons, go to brandchannel for Garnell's piece.

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.

Gyaan: How big is the naming industry

As of 2006, the number of registered domain names on the internet was 120 million. In 2003, this number was 60 million.

This means, every three years, the number of registered names, double. In 2006 alone, the number of registered domain names was close to 35 million.

Applying a modest growth rate of 20%, one can expect the number of names that will be registered in 2008 to be 50 million. 50 million names is a big market.

Let’s assume that only 1% of these names come from naming companies. So make that 500,000 names suggested by naming companies.

The cheapest rate any dirt cheap naming company will charge for a domain name is $ 100. Logical deduction: the naming industry is at least a 50 million dollar industry.

Now this figure could be way below the actual size, because we haven’t included the fee the naming company charges for trade marking the name & researching it. So we can safely double the figure and estimate the size of the industry to be at least $ 100 million dollars.

Gyaan: Numerology & Names

Does it make any sense to apply numerology to brand names? A significant section of risk-takers seem to think so. Before we disagree, let's apply the principles of numerology to a few famous brands and see if the numerologists are right or wrong...

MICROSOFT
Name score is 46. Microsoft's number is 1. The characteristics of number 1 are initiating action, pioneering, leading, independent, attaining, individual. Usually the number 1 person is a skilled executive with keen administrative capabilities. Such people are known to be egoistic,self-centered, overly aggressive and have a tendency to dominate.

GOOGLE
Name score is 34. Google's number is 7. The characteristics of number 7 are analysis, understanding, knowledge, awareness, studious, meditating. The hallmark of the number 7 is a good mind, and especially good at searching out and finding the truth. The type of person that can really get involved in a search for wisdom or hidden truths, often becoming an authority on whatever it is you are focusing on.

APPLE
Name score is 23. Apple's number is 5. The characteristics of #5 are expansiveness, visionary, adventure, the constructive use of freedom. Endowed with the wonderful characteristic of multi-talents and versatility, you are good at presenting ideas and knowing how to approach people to get what you want. Your popularity may lead you toward some form of entertainment or amusement. Whatever you do, you are clever, analytical, and a very quick thinker.

HARLEY DAVIDSON
Name score is 67. Harley's number is 4. The characteristics of #4 are: a foundation, order, service, struggle against limits, steady growth. Your destiny is to express wonderful organization skills with your ever practical, down-to-earth approach. You are the kind of person who is always willing to work those long, hard hours to push a project through to completion. A patience with detail allows you to become expert in fields such as building, engineering, and all forms of craftsmanship.

COCA-COLA
The characteristics of #8 are: Practical endeavors, status oriented, power-seeking, high-material goals.You have outstanding organizational and administrative capabilities. You have the potential for considerable achievement in business or other powerful positions. You can expect to receive the financial and material rewards. You have the skill and abilities to establish or operate a business with great efficiency. You have good judgment when it comes to money and commercial matters, and you understand how to build and accumulate material wealth.

CONCLUSION: Except for Harley, all the other brands seem to display characteristics of the number that rule them. Truly eerie is the Google bit about searching and Microsoft's dominatrix trait. Simply put, numerology works.

NOTE: Number characteristics have been extracted from Paulsadowski.com.

Gyaan: It's Complicated

In the future, more and more companies will go in for an online presence. Heck, as 'Neuromancer' Gibson said, "The future is upon us." Speaking of which, coming up with a name for an online entity is a different challenge.

Basic naming question: Are names for online brands very different from their offline citizenry? Next question: If so, why?

This list of top 10 social media sites is a revealing microcosm of naming trends in the online world and clearly highlights the contrasts between branding choices in the two spaces. YouTube vs Time Warner, Google vs Head & Shoulders, Bebo vs Baby Shoppe. As they say on FB, "It's Complicated."

Gyaan: The long and the short of brand names

In general, we all agree that a short name is better than a long one. But why? Apart from the usual reasons like shorter names are easier to remember and pronounce, another rarely considered one is that sub-editors at the various newspapers you'll desperately need plugs from for your newly launched product, will find it much easier to fit a short name into their headline.

As an editor and sub-editor of many years, I wholeheartedly agree with this line of thinking. Any other unusual reasons you can think of for shorter brand names?

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.