Most corporations, when giving birth to a new
product, behave just like parents
jumping in frenzy in a maternity ward. This typical
hysterical hoopla of the incubation
wing is often replaced by a subtler, cubicle
behavior and at times becomes a subdued
Dilbertish style revolution. Objects do fly, even
though they are memos or sometimes, sharp yet harmless, foamy projectiles. Everyone
shares the excitement and all fights
are well intentioned. Everyone wants a successful
launch. There is always a good
feeling and everyone is happy.
Naming that new THING is the most
critical and extremely controversial part
of the innovation cycle.
Every participant passionately displays sets of
arguments and opinions, molding
and changing each time in every other round, while
that new object of attention behaves
almost like an alien, projecting strange vibes,
lights, and humming sounds. This
isn’t a sci-fi project, ask any technology company
or a bank creating a new credit card,
they each have similar out-of-body,
extra-terrestrial types of experiences. This is
normal
when logic leaves the body and the brain drifts in
creative space. There’s nothing to
fear, these attacks of mild lunacy is what ad
agencies are made of. Wow, this
means there is now an open season for hunting down a
new name.
Without a name, there is no calling-device. No
customer will ever refer to it or even talk
about it. Basically, no name, no story. No story no
ad-campaign. No ad-marketing no
business. Get it? It seems what to call that
thing is the most critical issue behind this
total incubation strategy, startling romance with
the initial idea leading all the way to
final delivery. So push. The reason why corporations
want to do this internally is no
different than having mother-in-laws team up with
distant relatives to name a set of
twins. But wait, this time, let’s just go and get
them some external naming. Here, we
will send in the clowns. Big and small teams are
hired to pool names. Thousand of
choices later, that thing become the
thing. Now we’re getting somewhere.
No
matter what the complexity of the innovation or what
the size of corporation,
this naming issue always has four critical sides.
Only questions?
-
Character:
What is this new thing? How and why does it work
and why will it
change or overcome a hurdle? What are its
characteristics and possible personalities?
-
Customers:
Who are they and why will they buy it? What are they
thinking and how
will you attract them? Why will they respond to your
name and grasp this innovation?
-
Competition:
How will they attack? What are the other confusing
names in the market
place? How do you get a unique and a distinct name
identity to secure a market position?
-
Delivery:
How will you tell your side of the story? How will
you deliver this message?
What must they remember in a name? Why should you
protect the name?
This may sound simple and almost boring, so let’s go
to the danger zone.
Most new innovations simply die of quick exhaustion
as they fail to deliver the precise
message of their story. Either the lack of clarity
in a name or sending multiple messages
that confuse customers will do just that. Sometimes,
this is done to please different
interests and sometimes-in total oblivion to the
customer’s perceptions and realities.
Promoting totally irrelevant aspects of the name
identity or the missing of a distinct
name altogether without any logical association with
the product itself will never help.
The general perception that expensive branding will
always fix the entire name image problem is
way off line. Branding is an art; however, the term
is loosely used by far too many as a cure
for all. Without a proper placement of a clear name
identity and a sophisticated naming strategy,
branding is a lost cause. A buyer not only needs to
understand the message but also must
remember the name and be happy to talk about it.
Otherwise, the entire promotion is just an
expense. This is how popularity is lost, case
studies are shelved, agencies changed
and nothing gained.
True, there are thousands of great success stories,
and we always start with Yahoo, Ebay,
and Amazon of the recent past or Microsoft, Intel of
distant past. IBM, GM of the hinder years.
Ah, what about the millions that came so close to
success before they ran out money,
who just couldn’t finish telling their entire story?
Telling stories is what advertising and branding
does. Some are good, but are more than
often plain stories, wrapped only in a short-lived
promotional hoopla and without properly
structured memory recall devices. Is this the reason
why all car commercials look the same?
Why are almost all logos and names so similar? The
toll of innovation on the human mind
is
enormous as every second; some new product is being
introduced with a spinning logo
and a weird name. Does it matter if it’s coming from
some foreign, unpronounceable land?
Irrespective, it’s sitting in front on our screens.
The bottom line is, telling an expensive story
at
the cost of a poor name identity is a disaster in
the making. The dilution of name identity is
the number-one killer of good innovation, corporate
images, websites or new services.
The global competition is forcing executives for a
deeper understanding of cyber-branding as
an art of telling stories, rather than plastering
billboards. The power of e-commerce can
only be harnessed by designing digital name
identities, ready to circumnavigate without
language or trademark problems. The reason why these
issues aren’t being discussed in
detail at branding conferences or being taught at
major B-Schools is still a mystery.
If
a good name only costs a fraction of the whole
storyboard, then why is it ignored? A
corporation will clearly lose its navigation without
a solid naming strategy designed
under professional guidelines.
Today there are five critical questions that
management must ask itself:
-
Is the name global? Prove it.
-
Is the name yours? Own it.
-
Is the name with an identical Dot Com? Show it.
-
Is the name easy? Say it.
-
Is the name in trouble? Change it…
Ah, so would this mean naming that
thing…again?