Number 35: Summer 2006
Project ALPHA Name Evaluation
By Jon Montgomery and Michael Lieberman
Editor's comment: Developing new names for products and brands is a complex task that is affected by numerous factors. This new article looks at elements of the brand name development process and, using a case study, shows how brand name testing works as part of this process.
It all starts with a name. Just as each of us has a name at the core of our individual sense of identity, so too brands have names as the basis of their visual and verbal identities. Names project the personality of the brand; they inform the quality and integrity of what they represent. To be successful, they need to be relevant, pronounceable, memorable, and free of negative connotations. (And as a legal requirement, a brand name must also be unique.)
Beyond a single product or service, a name also must work within a company’s brand architecture system. As part of its transition from hardware maker to integrated solutions provider, IBM had to streamline the number of ‘brand’ names used to identify literally thousands of products and services. Streamlining meant eliminating hundreds of unproductive or inappropriate names. It also meant getting the entire organization to adhere to new corporate guidelines that strictly enforce the corporate strategy—name development in IBM’s specific business units was guided by the revamped brand architecture.
With so much riding on a brand’s success in the marketplace, naming is not a trivial matter. It is both an art, and a science—using the power of words to give businesses and brands competitive advantage. In the branding profession there is an almost fundamental view that the equity embodied in a brand name consists of essentially two elements:
The degree to which the target audience associates the brand with the strategic positioning objectives of the product, and
The extent to which that positioning lends the brand the desired amount of differentiation in its competitive space.
We believe this. We also believe that name development is a creative process, but name evaluation is not. That we leave to the intended audience through quantitative preference testing. The users of a product or service are the most important judges of a name’s efficacy. Our name evaluation tool, BrandcomSM, was developed with this in mind. Others in our field have also developed quantitative methodologies for evaluating names.
Years ago, one of our clients, a branding consultancy that has grown to be one of the world’s largest, asked us for help. At the time, the firm was doing a thriving business in naming. But a recurring issue for them was that their clients asked for some form of validation that the names they were recommending were indeed acceptable in the real world. As a result of that need, we developed Brandcom, which the firm offered to many of its naming clients. We would work directly with the client, keeping an arm’s–length distance from their branding agency, making clients a lot happier with the entire naming process.
We group name evaluation and package design evaluation together because we use essentially the same methodology for both, in that the evaluation task is essentially alternative testing. The goal is to help the client choose the best name with the least risk from the list of final name candidates (or the best package design). The Brandcom methodology was designed specifically for the purpose of mapping the performance of a set of names (or package designs) in relation to:
SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h each other;
SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h established brands in the category (treated as control);
SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h a well-specified positioning strategy.
The test permits clients to evaluate test names relative to the intended positioning strategy, as well as in terms of aesthetic appeal. Brandcom can also be used—with slight modifications—to measure concept fit as well if the name is attached to a new product. The inclusion of competitive brands is a major strength of Brandcom. We believe that for a new name to be successful, it must not only be "on target" insofar as its own strategy is concerned, but also succeed in giving the brand sufficient differentiation capabilities in the marketplace and in the minds of consumers, who are bombarded with advertising and communications in general.
The test also includes a section on aesthetic appeal to determine the name liked most and the images and associations aroused by the best-liked name. This sequence of questions deepens management's understanding of a name's dynamics beyond the specified strategy dimensions.
Case Study
In this article we are going to examine a case study involving Brandcom, where a client (company name and test names are disguised) sought to introduce a new line of soups to their existing brand portfolio. A number of potential names were developed by their branding agency, and all were submitted to the legal clearance process prior to testing.
The Stockpot Soup Company was exploring possible names for its new Flavor Enhancer line. The new name would ideally meet the following broad criteria: Provide a clearly defined platform for communicating this new line of dry soups to consumers; and position the new line as being healthful (i.e., consistent with healthy lifestyles). Ideally the new name would be combined with the Stockpot label to benefit from its existing brand equity. The concept was given the internal label of ‘ALPHA’.
Seven test names were developed through qualitative research and Stockpot input. In this phase of research, the names were submitted to a Brandcom analysis to provide management with a systematic evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses relative to the new ALPHA concept. Specifically, the Brandcom test provides:
A concrete picture (via a perceptual map) of how consumers structure the category, based on attribute ratings of established (control) brands;
A picture of how test names perform relative to established brands;
An overall measure of test names’ appeal;
An overall measure of concept fit, i.e., of how well test names are seen to match the ALPHA product description; and
An overall measure of memorability, as captured by the percent of respondents able to recall each test name at the interview's conclusion.
The study was conducted among 300 respondents recruited at central (mall) locations in several major cities. (Brandcom can also be utilized as an online or telephone approach.) To qualify, respondents had to be females aged 18-69 who cook from scratch at home at least three times a week and who were positively predisposed to the Flavor Enhancer concept.
Test Names
The names were designed to carry and reinforce the product concept.
Stockpot Flavor Essence
Stockpot Flavor Flair
Stockpot Chef’s Medley
Stockpot Cook’s Medley
Stockpot Addables
Stockpot Enticers
Stockpot Flavorsome
To enhance their understanding of individual test names’ performance, eight established names in the seasoning, dry mix, soy sauce, bouillon, and broth categories were included as controls.
Control Names
Stockpot Seasoning
Mama's Chicken Broth
Esther’s Seasoning Salt
Brand Empire Dry Seasoning Mixes
Patton Soy Sauce
Armstrong’s Broth
Newman's Own Bouillon
Hornby’s Secret
Brandcom Results
Table 1 summarizes top-box performance for the test names. This provides a top-line glimpse of results and is the raw input that goes into the Brandcom analysis. [ Table 1 as pdf ]
Table 2 is the top-box summary of the competitive brand performance. This is the secondary input into the Brandcom equation. Again, it is worthwhile comparing these measures across the board. [ Table 2 as pdf ]
Table 3 summarizes the test names’ performance on all of the Brandcom metrics. Strategic Fit is the most important analytic measure in the Brandcom methodology. [ Table 3 as pdf ]
The principal output of the Brandcom test is a series of perceptual maps—for the sample in total and for relevant sub-groups—providing direct, graphic representation of the performance of all the names on all the attributes simultaneously. The results of the other sections of the test, e.g., appeal, reasons for appeal, etc., are made available in tabular and in graphic form.
The map in Figure 1 shows that, with the exception of Mama's Chicken Broth, seven of the established brands do not present distinctive images, clustering in two general areas. Hornby's Secret, Armstrong's Broth, Lawry’s Seasoned Salt, and Patton Soy Sauce cluster tightly.
[ Figure 1 as pdf ]
Swanson’s Broth, Wyler’s Bouillon, and to a slightly lesser extent, Accent Seasoning, exhibit similar profiles. They are pulled away from that cluster by more positive attributes. Accent is drawn toward NOT ARTIFICIAL and to a lesser extent GOOD VALUE and HEALTHY LIFESTYLES. Swanson’s Broth and Wyler’s Bouillon are pulled toward UNIQUE, SOMETHING I WOULD USE OFTEN, SOMETHING I WOULD KEEP HANDY, and less directly, IS FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME.
College Inn Broth possesses the most distinctive and positive image of all eight control names. It is distinguished by its close proximity to SOMETHING I WOULD KEEP ON HAND, SOMETHING I WOULD USE OFTEN, FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME and secondarily to UNIQUE AND EXCITING PRODUCT and MAKES FOOD TASTE TERRIFIC.
Once the general perceptual structure of the category has been established, the performance of the test names is evaluated by overlaying them on the map (see Figure 3). One should note that each of the seven test name stimuli includes the family name “Stockpot.” One might expect this fact to pull the test names closer to each other more than if they had been displayed independently of the parent identifier name. Indeed, a strong tendency to cluster is observed in the overlay.
Chef’s Medley, Flavor Essence, Flavor Flair, and Cook’s Medley map closely around contains artificial ingredients, just like a lot of other products, doesn’t simplify cooking and to a lesser extent, not for the way I cook, not for everyday use, doesn’t get my attention, and not good for healthy lifestyles.
Enticers and Addables are pulled away somewhat from the “Stockpot” cluster by FOR THE WAY I COOK, GETS MY ATTENTION, and IS GOOD FOR EVERYDAY USE.
Far and away the most differentiated test name is Flavorsome. It breaks away from the “Stockpot” cluster, and is profiled by positive associations. More important, Flavorsome occupies a distinct location in consumers’ perceptual space apart from all the other established category brands. Flavorsome clusters tightly around ADDS FLAVOR AND PIZZAZZ TO FOOD, IS GOOD FOR EVERYDAY USE, SIMPLIFIES COOKING, GETS MY ATTENTION, and IS FOR THE WAY I COOK. The name comes closer to any other test or control name with respect to DOESN’T ADD FAT OR CHOLESTEROL (a component of the intended “healthful” strategic positioning) and IS EASY TO USE. However, Flavorsome does not (nor does any other test name or control brand) come close to the other component of the “healthful” positioning: IS GOOD FOR HEALTHY LIFESTYLES.
[ Figure 2 as pdf ]
A review of the so-called measure of strategic fit is the most important analytic measure in the Brandcom methodology. Looking at the perceptual map, one can easily see that a number of test names are only negatively associated with their defining attributes. For this reason alone, Chef’s Medley, Flavor Essence, Flavor Flair, and Cook’s Medley do not appear to be acceptable names. Enticers and Addables are pulled away somewhat from the “Stockpot” cluster, but are essentially undifferentiated.
Far and away the most differentiated test name was Flavorsome. It breaks away from the generalized “Stockpot” cluster, and is profiled by strictly positive associations. More important, Flavorsome occupies a distinct location in consumers’ perceptual space apart from all the other established category brands. Flavorsome clusters tightly around ADDS FLAVOR AND PIZZAZZ TO FOOD, IS GOOD FOR EVERYDAY USE, SIMPLIFIES COOKING, GETS MY ATTENTION, and IS FOR THE WAY I COOK. The name comes closer to any other test or control name with respect to DOESN’T ADD FAT OR CHOLESTEROL (a component of the intended “healthful” strategic positioning) and IS EASY TO USE. However, Flavorsome does not (nor does any other test name or control brand) come close to the other component of the “healthful” positioning, is good for healthy lifestyles.
The measures of name appeal, concept fit (name appropriateness) and memorability confound somewhat the names’ performance on the strategic fit measure. Flavor Essence, Chef’s Medley, and Flavor Flair were felt by respondents to be the most appealing names and the most appropriate for the concept description read to them. Chef’s Medley and Flavorsome were the most memorable.
In conclusion, Flavorsome performed extremely well on the measures of strategic fit and memorability, and less well on name appeal and concept fit. It was by far the best candidate for name consideration.
With their somewhat undifferentiated image profile, Addables and Enticers performed only moderately well on strategic fit, and poorly on the other measures. Both were marginal name candidates.
Flavor Essence, Chef’s Medley, Flavor Flair, and Cook’s Medley, due to their negative profiles on the strategic fit measure, were not acceptable name candidates.
Closing thoughts
Quantitative evaluation is an essential component of the naming process. Managements can learn a great deal about how their target audiences may react to new names being considered. The evaluation process objectifies what too often is a gut-feeling call when companies develop new names and choose a name based on more subjective inputs.
Pool Version 2.0
© Jon Montgomery & Michael Lieberman / Through the Loop Consulting Ltd 1998-2006