A major goal of any marketing endeavor is to “get your name out there.” Sometimes, however, companies make grave errors in the name that they have chosen to promote.
We’ve all seen companies named for their founder(s). Lehman Brothers. BlessingWhite. Any law firm you can think of. Naming a company after oneself may gratify the ego, but there are several crucial reasons why it may be incredibly short-sighted…
- The name, in an of itself, communicates nothing about the purpose of the firm. Do you really want potential clients to be guessing?
- The name may be awkward to pronounce or promote. Sure, you’re used to it – but you’re not the potential client.
- When the founder leaves or retires, it is often too late, from a marketing point of view, to go through a major branding change. As my 7-year old might say, “you’re stuck with it!”
- For the founder(s), control of a most crucial asset – his/her name – is lost if he/she moves on to another endeavor
I once worked for a company named Frank Barker & Associates. What does that name tell you? Well, the founder was Frank Barker, and he hired some associates. All market identity had to be grafted onto a name that carried no meaning, wasn’t sexy, and didn’t lend itself to sticky branding efforts. That’s self-defeating.
Right now, you could be doing your searches via “Brin and Page’s Internet Search Solutions”. Instead, you use one of the best-known brands on the planet: Google. Sergey and Larry had the forethought to create a brand name that could become bigger than their own names. And while we’re on the topic of bad naming conventions, certainly avoid meaningless acronyms (the bumble of a jumble) which cannot easily connect with the minds and hearts of customers.
Sometimes, you just have to bite the bullet and make the change to a more future-looking name, abandoning the initial name for something that can more easily accrue brand equity (here’s an example of one company that did just that). There may be times to name a company after its founder and retain that brand identity, IF the goal of the company is purposefully set out to be built around that individual. But if you’re looking to build something bigger than yourself, better to make a name for yourself by not naming if for yourself. Those who join you and follow after you will be grateful to have you in the corner office, and not emblazoned on the business card.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=800c4f61-19a5-4b8c-a816-041812d3cb8f)
Tags: brand name, equity now, moskowitz, naming
Steve, I’ll agree with you on almost every point. I will say however, with the lack of naming real estate in the webworld (domains), it’s getting harder and harder to have a creative name that’s descriptive regarding the value prop of a company. Doesn’t mean it cannot be done, it’s just really hard work.
Paul,
I ABSOLUTELY agree. I had to spend a lot of time creating my new company name (Impactiviti), and that required a lot of on-line searching. Nonetheless, I’d rather invest that time than commit to a name like “ABC Enterprises”!
Some good points in today’s post. However, it makes me wonder when it will become fashionable again to name a company after a founder after these web 2.0 names become boring and saturate the market. The point is to stand out right?
Jack Daniels was like this personality. He was a story in a really good movie and people wanted to be part of it (experiential). I wonder when marketers will become story tellers again?
Your point is well taken– the better the name, the easier it is to build a brand around it.
On the other hand, Amazon and (particularly) eBay are both kind of silly names that signify nothing.
And would you trust a law firm called “Justicity” ?
I’m always floored by how much money companies give to the giant branding/naming shops, only to wind up with something like “Accenture.”
Great article. However, I would be interested in what you would recommend law firms or other businesses that are required to have a certain naming scheme do to make sure they promote the type of business they do without breaking any ethical rules?
Elizabeth C. Lewis
Attorney and Counselor at Law
http://www.eclewis.com
Your points make some sense for certain type of companies. I would say, however, the fashion business has done well using the owner or designers name. Other that do well with the owners names include Lawyers, Doctors and many ad agencies have done well with the owners name.
The point about having to have a name that is descriptive of what you do is a good one, but it doesn’t always work that way. When an idea is unique or powerful, it doesn’t mater what the name is. Examples; Google, Apple, and YaHoo.
@Levon – great example with Jack Daniels, where the product and the mythos become transcendent.
@alan – in the case of Amazon and eBay (and other web-type companies), while the names themselves are meaningless to begin with, they give a fresh canvas to paint on. If the company and product is strong enough, then (like Google), then the brand can self-define. Of course, then there’s boo.com…!
@Elizabeth – I’m not familiar with the intricacies of naming conventions for law firms, though they are a classic example of XXXX & YYYY & ZZZZ naming schemes. Would enjoy your commentary on what IS possible outside of that convention…
Steve, Great article, even if it is something of a statement of the obvious. Just curious, though: How exactly did you come up with the name for your firm and aren’t you a bit concerned that it’s so cute and so clever that instead of drawing someone’s attention that they’re apt to move on to another firm with a name that’s a bit more serious and, in their minds, more professional? In other words, how do you balance clever (and I really like the name of your firm) with something maybe more seemingly solid?
@scott: good question. My main revenue-generating business, as a consultant, is named Impactiviti – a more serious-sounding (& meaningful) word. I enjoy branding/marketing, blog about it, and hope in time to do actual work in the field, so I was more concerned, when coming up with the name StickyFigure, to simply have a “handle” that was more cute and memorable…so, to answer your question, I think I tried to both have my cake and eat it too!
I am pretty sure that regulation of law firm names are controlled in each state (and may even be different in each one, I just don’t know). In Colorado, there are several Rules of Professional Conduct that determine what you can be called. I don’t think that you can call yourself “The Best Law Firm in Denver” nor can you advertise that you have the cheapest rates in Denver (unless somehow you can prove it is true). With the exception of organizations that provide legal services (typically non-profit), I can’t think of a single law firm that isn’t one or more names so there must be more requirements that I just don’t know about.
This seems to make it more difficult to create a brand image for lawyers. With the exceptions of the ones that advertise at 3am or have business cards at liquor stores, I can’t think of a law firm that has create a brand…
Guilty as charged. It is the first impulse of a law firm to use their name as their brand and the trend doesn’t seem to be breaking any time soon. I look back now and wish I would have thought it through a little bit more but there is nothing to be done about it now.