Naming Games
By ELIZABETH GOODGOLD
Business 2.0


Dear Editor:

I found Joe Ashbrook Nickell's recent article, "What's in a Name?" a thought-provoking look into the name change issues companies sometimes face. As a naming and branding expert however, I fear that company decision-makers will misinterpret your article as an invitation to re-name on a whim.

The decision to rename is a difficult one - weighing the positives of a new name against the negatives of losing any derived brand equity. However, we have found that there are three vital times to re-name your company or product.

First, if your name or brand is connected to insurmountable negative publicity (think ValueJet). Second, if a negative connotation can be derived from your brand (remember the mid-80's appetite suppressant, Ayds?). And, thirdly, if your brand name limits the scope of your business (note Boston Chicken's evolution into Boston Market).

In reading your article, one might think that a name change alone drove the phenomenal increase in brand recognition of About.com (nee Mining Co). In reality, this generic name communicates nothing to the consumer. It was only through many guerrilla marketing tactics, heavy advertising and public relations spending that this brand name was recognized as a portal and recalled by consumers.

When we work with a client on a renaming project, a carefully crafted plan is deployed -competitive analysis, perceptual mapping, trademark screening, domain acquisition, foreign language review, name change tactics, and customer communication are all considered in order to create consistency with the overall brand positioning.

Since we believe that naming is to marketing as location is to real estate, a naming decision cannot be taken lightly. It is only with a concerted effort that a company can harness the power of a name change.

With warm nuances,
Elizabeth J. Goodgold

Business 2.0, July 25, 2000. Reprinted with permission.