An equal and opposite reaction: How to wrangle emotions and subjectivity in a naming program

Mel Brooks was asked, "What's the hardest part of making a film?"
He answered, "Cutting all those little holes in the sides."
   
Naming's like film. The hardest part of making a brand name is the cutting of little holes in the names. In other words, idiosyncratic and subjective reactions — poking holes — are what really make the naming process difficult.

Because emotions and subjectivity are an inevitable part of the process, it's helpful to know how to work well with them.

In the second half of my interview with Irene Gil of Grasp, I discuss key principles and practices for naming practitioners. Her verbatim Spanish translation can be found here.  


Q: It is incredible the quantity of emotions that are managed during the process and how political the decision can be. How can be anxiety managed? How to avoid that names with a good brand potential are rejected at a first sight?

Anthony Shore:

No matter how hard one tries to make it an objective exercise, naming is subjective and emotional. Each client in a meeting has their own associations with a word; it is often assumed — incorrectly — that others will have the same idiosyncratic associations.

Here's how I wrangle the emotions and subjectivity that attend brand naming programs:

Each client needs to feel that their opinions and ideas have been heard throughout a naming program. Active listening, that is re-stating what the client said, shows you've listened. So does writing it down. It's vital that your naming creative brief reflects everything important you've heard; a name presentation should repeat the most important points of your creative brief, and name rationale should feature those same points.

If a client asks you to explore a word or an idea or a name style in your creative work, do it, even if you disagree. You are obliged to advise the client of your concerns, but it's really in your best interest as a naming practitioner to fulfill the client's request. Failure to do so might make the client much less receptive to your names. That same client could "poison the well," and make offhand, pejorative comments that derail other names.

It's often true that good candidate names — especially highly differentiated ones — may be rejected by clients, leading to the brander's paradox: Differentiated ideas are essential to effective branding, yet differentiated ideas are initially rejected simply because they are unfamiliar.

I delve into this topic in Instinct as Enemy where I recommend these techniques to rally support for new and unfamiliar names:

Repetition
Each candidate name should be said several times so it begins to feel familiar.

Analogy
When a presenting a differentiated name, give your client examples of other successful product or company names that are comparable in style, metaphor or construction. When a client sees that someone else has tried the same naming approach and succeeded, they'll warm up.  

Context
Presenting candidate names in a real-world context, like a business card, web page or building sign, helps make the candidate name seem less speculative and more like a real, de facto brand.

Q: What do you think should be the role of research in a naming process? Do you recommend the naming test?

Name research must be done mindfully and for the right reasons. In Decisions, Decisions: How to Research Brand Names, I write that research should not be used to "pick a winner." Instead, research should illuminate the names' relative ability to support the brand positioning and attributes. Research can reveal "red-flag" associations and provide creative ideas for messaging and launch of a name. Research can neutralize some of the subjective associations and political dynamics around names.

Name research should not ask customers what names they "like," whether the names "fit with the category" or if they are "memorable." I advise against using focus groups for name evaluation and instead suggest one-on-ones. Focus groups can be useful before naming begins to learn what features or benefits are important to them and what their "pain points" are. This understanding can guide the brand positioning and inform the naming strategy.

Q: Having conducted the Accenture huge naming process, what do you think of employee's competition?

As I mentioned, I believe that great names can come from anywhere. Naivete can inspire wonderful names or terrible ones. Accenture notswithstanding, whose name was developed by an Accenture employee, an employee competition will not very likely bring forth a good, trademarkable name. In my experience, employee contests tend to garner names that are descriptive or obvious. 

Perhaps most problematic, an employee naming contest signals that it's not a difficult, strategic or terribly important matter. Companies do not throw contests asking which competitor should be acquired, whether a line of business should be divested, or how their flagship product should be positioned.

Q: When you work in global names, how do you assure there are no negative connotations in other languages?

You need to ask the right people the right questions and evaluate their answers critically. When people are exposed to candidate brand names in a linguistic check, there are personal associations that would not arise after the name is adopted and launched. The challenge is to determine the nature of foreign speakers' associations. You have to make a judgment: Is a negative response to a name just one person's idiosyncratic reaction or will it be widespread? And if a negative reaction is likely to be widespread, does that really matter?

For example, if Nintendo tested the name Wii for negative connotations in the U.S., it would have bombed mightily: It's homonymous with a childish word for penis and peeing. Yet, the name and product have succeeded because (1) the product's appeal eclipsed its giggle-inducing name and (2) the name was brought to life with animation (the two "i"s bow) and nomenclature (Wiimote). Today, you can ask someone to come over and play with your Wii without getting slapped.

As the success of names like Wii, Virgin, Motley Fool and Banana Republic demonstrate, negative connotations aren't necessarily bad.

These are some of the questions I ask when conducting native speaker checks: 

How will this word be pronounced by a native speaker of your language? 

Is the word similar in sound or appearance to other words in your language? If so, what are those words, how are they pronounced, and what do they mean? 

Are there any inappropriate associations that a native speaker of your language might have with this word? If so, what exactly are those associations and why would they be associated?

Q: Do you think brand names have to be liked by the majority of the target audience or is it good to provoke a certain controversy at least in its launching?

With time and exposure, people will grow to like a name, no matter how they felt about it at launch. The day Accenture launched, a few people quipped the name sounded like "dentures." On day 2, nobody did because the name took on an identity all its own. That happens with all names.

A name is liked as much as the product or company it refers to.  If the product is great, people will think better of its name than if it's lousy. The name Andersen Consulting was revered when a judge compelled the company to rename. Months later, when Accenture's former parent company, Andersen Worldwide, melted down because of Enron, the Andersen name was rendered toxic. Accenture, even though it was a new name, became even stronger and more favorable in the aftermath.

Controversial names have the benefit of being different and memorable; they trigger strong emotions that forge a bond. These are desirable traits in a name. But a controversial name should be borne from the brand positioning. Irrelevant controversy can undermine or overshadow brand messaging. For example, the name FCUK is controversial but well-suited for rebellious teens. But the recently launched Kraft iSnack 2.0 didn't work, even as a "next generation Vegemite." The name was retired after just a few weeks of public ridicule. Cheesybite, a suitable, not-stupid name, took its place.

Q: In my experience, to find a good name is just 50% of the task. The other 50% (or even more) is to convince the company that it is the adequate decision. Do you agree?

For most projects, generating a list of strategic and fresh names is not that hard, especially when you've been doing it for 30 years. Convincing a roomful of clients to adopt the best one is another matter. It's when the rubber hits the road, when clients balk at or mock your names, where experience in naming makes a huge difference. An experienced namer will be able to persuade a client to adopt a powerful, meaning-laden, real-word name or a controversial one. An inexperienced namer might be able to sell-in a name, but it will probably be an "empty vessel" coined name that doesn't arrive with much meaning. Names that don't say anything also don't have much to criticize...or to love.    

Thank you, Irene, for translating and sharing my thoughts with your Spanish readers.

Describe different

"What am I?"

Every invention begs this essential question of identity.

The answer is found in the product's descriptor. A descriptor defines a thing, categorizing it, framing it, positioning it and signaling its intended future.

A product that doesn't claim to break new ground adopts its category's standard convention. For example, a new, run-of-the-mill digital camera would be marketed as a "digital camera".

A revolutionary product, on the other hand, deserves an innovative product descriptor. And, sometimes, a me-too product benefits from one, too.

The trouble is, innovation is easier done than said.

I wrote in this article about the "brander's paradox": Human instincts make us wary of unfamiliar and different things, yet differentiation is essential to a product's success.

By definition, an innovation is unfamiliar. How can its product descriptor differentiate without triggering people's fear of the unknown?

The New York Times gives us an idea in this recent article about product descriptors,

"When people encounter something they don’t recognize, they make sense of it by associating it with something familiar."

The most effective new descriptors combine familiar terms in unfamiliar ways. They make product function or form clearly understood, even upon first exposure. Novel descriptors insufficiently informative should at the very least pique interest.

Descriptors that differ

The following products illustrate different approaches:

Starbucks VIA ready brew



It's a me-too product but you can't tell from its descriptor. This is really instant coffee, a product designator unbecoming Starbucks. "Ready brew" emphasizes the chief benefit of saving time by using current, casual vernacular.

Dreyer's Slow Churned ice cream



Food scientists have a name for everything, but that name isn't always appetizing. The dessert wizards at Dreyer's, for example, had perfected a new way to blend low-fat ice cream so it acquires the texture and richness of full-fat ice cream. In precise but dry science lingo, they called the process "low-temperature extrusion". Doesn't exactly make the mouth water, does it?.

Dreyer's isn't dumb. They knew "extrusion" had no place on a quart of mint chip. They needed a term that had immediate appetite appeal. The words of their final, market-facing descriptor, "Slow Churned", taps into the semiotics of yesteryear, when food was simpler, unprocessed, and naturally indulgent. "Churned" evokes hand-mixed barrels of butter, hinting at the product's creamy richness. "Slow" connotes food that's unprocessed and handcrafted.

On the heels of Slow Churned ice cream's astounding success, Breyer's flattered Dreyer's with their imitative descriptor, Double Churned ice cream.

Disclaimer: I led the naming of Dreyer's Slow Churned ice cream as Global Director of Naming and Writing at Landor Associates.

Bing decision engine

Can't fault Microsoft for trying. Bing is a search engine, pure and simple. Although "decision engine" will never become part of the vernacular, it does suggest how Bing is different: Giving relevant information to help make a informed decision, instead of overwhelming with googlebytes of information.

Noah's Stuffed Saladwich



Coined words are hard to get right. This inventive, efficient descriptor gets mixed results. At a glance, "saladwich" looks like real word because it begins and ends with the same letters as "sandwich" (a phenomenon cheekily called, "typoglycemia"). But "Saladwich" sounds clunky because "-wich" is not a productive suffix and doesn't normally combine with other words (unlike the "-tini" of "martini" that gives us "chocotini" and "apple-tini"). "Saladwich" will sound less contrived as it becomes more familiar.

Blackberry wireless email solution



Technology products that blend hardware, software and services are tough to describe. More often than not, catch-all words like "solution" or "system" are employed. Though vague, these words avoid long descriptors that specify all key product dimensions. "Wireless email solution" is a lot shorter than "phone, PDA, email, internet, software and services." To its credit (and my alma mater's, Lexicon), the differentiation in Blackberry is borne primarily by the Blackberry name itself, not its ho-hum descriptor.

Segway personal transporter


This NYT article discusses the difficulty categorizing the Segway, a product that's really unlike anything else. Although the article touches on the brand name, it doesn't mention Segway's official descriptor. "Personal transporter" suggests who the product is for and what it does at a basic level, but it doesn't capture how revolutionary the product is, what it looks like or even whether it's motorized.

But a descriptor can't do everything. Like most products visibly inventive, a photo of the Segway speaks volumes. And messaging, mostly communicated through PR, does the heavy lifting of describing Segway technology and its applications.

Describing technology convergence

Each of the products above fit, more or less, into one functional category. But in electronic devices, disparate functions inevitably converge. Over time, we've seen phones integrate video cameras, music players evolve into movie players, and televisions that browse the Web.

Technology convergence presents a naming quandary: How do you categorize a product that merges others?



There are five approaches a marketer can take when describing one device that does the work of many:

• List all of the converged technologies (e.g. "all-in-one printer, fax, scanner")
  Long but accurate, clear and communicative. Needs to change as new functions are added. Generic and not protectable.
  
• Cite one function only (e.g. "mobile phone" [the built-in camera is not referenced in the descriptor])
  Short; relies on copy and imagery to tout other functions. Doesn't suggest "new". Generic, not protectable.
  

• Use one of the technology descriptors as the focus but modify it (e.g. "smartphone")
  Short; borrows from the familiar to aid understanding. These descriptors can take a long time to be adopted by industry and customers. It helps if the modifier is already understood from other categories and retains that meaning. May or may not be protectable.
  
  
• Come up with something totally new (e.g. "media center")
  In naming, unfamiliarity is friction. Descriptors like these resist widespread adoption. They typically require a lot of time and money to gain traction. May or may not be protectable.
  
  
• Use no descriptor at all (e.g. "iPod")
  This is a risky approach and is only viable when the device marketer has
  (1) control over all communications, distribution and sales
  and
  (2) a lot of money.

Apple has conspicuously avoided using a product descriptor per se for iPod. It turns out, they didn't need one. No distributors or resellers could tinker with Apple's disciplined and exacting messaging. At launch, the ad headline, "1000 songs in your pocket" made it clear the iPod was a portable music player.

Today, the iPod has grown in function and familiarity. So confident is Apple, they answer "What is iPod touch?" with "A great iPod. A great pocket computer. A great portable game player." When you can recursively describe your product and people get it, you've transcended product descriptors and become a category unto yourself.
 

The iPod answers "What am I?" with the most basic statement of identity, "I am me".
I guess if you're iPod, that's all you need to know.

###

Take the innovation descriptor challenge!

Innovations are easier done than said. See if you can come up with better product descriptors than these:

• Segway personal transporter
• Blackberry wireless email solution
• The Internet global network
• Onstar in-vehicle safety and security system
• Wii console

Share your ideas in the comments section.

[This article was originally published in Duets Blog]

Instinct as enemy: How to sell-in the new and unfamiliar

Your instinct can be your enemy.

It's another paradox of the human condition. Although our instincts have mostly served us well, sometimes following an instinct is a mistake.

Consider our instinct to be wary of things unfamiliar.

Imagine, while strolling through the woods, that you come upon a bush covered with little red berries. If you've never seen these berries before, you don't know if they are safe or poisonous. Your instinct says, "don't eat." You live another day, thanks to your cautious, risk-averse nature.

But this very same instinct, the fear of the unknown, makes the branding process intrinsically difficult. That's because branding requires creating and saying something different than others. Differentiation is, after all, the very essence of branding.

So when a truly differentiated strategy or name or logo is first presented to clients, typically their instinctive reaction is to recoil, to reject the unfamiliar.

Although I've seen this phenomenon in client meetings and consumer research, it was this impassioned article that first exposed me to 'The Zajonc Effect.'

Psychologist Robert Zajonc from Stanford University has found that humans don’t initially like rare or unfamiliar things. And the more we see the same thing, the more we like it.

The Zajonc Effect, known as the 'exposure effect' to psychologists, turns a proverb on its head: Familiarity does not breed contempt; to the contrary, it breeds comfort.

The article's author, Bruce Tait, articulates clearly the brander's paradox:

“If brands are to succeed they need to be based on differentiated, unfamiliar brand strategies. Unfortunately, these are the exact same kind of ideas that people initially dislike.”

Tait lays the blame for the widespread, systemic loss of brand differentiation at the feet of 'marketing science,' the consumer testing, quantification, and rigid processes that fledgling ideas are commonly subjected to. Marketing science, in Tait's view, alleviates employees' fear of failure and gives them confidence. But their false prophet of hard numbers does a poor job divining what will actually succeed in the real world.

Quantitative testing of alternative positioning ideas will likely systematically kill the more original ideas, and people will prefer the ones that are closest to what they already know.

Seinfeld, Sony Walkman, Absolut vodka and, as cited by Malcom Gladwell in Blink, the Aeron chair, performed dismally in market research precisely because they were unlike anything else. But these all turned out to be quite successful after launch in the real world.

Consumers' negativity to unfamiliar things is inscribed in qualitative and quantitative research executive summaries that, in striving for clarity and brevity, magnify differences and minimize complexities. Even if research is done just as a "disaster check," negative results not disastrous will undermine confidence and often lead to adoption of safer, less-different solutions.

Tait's antidote to marketing science is to engage the CEO in the branding process. If the Chief Executive embraces truly different ideas, quantitative research is no longer needed to establish their legitimacy.

But CEOs are human, too. Despite their confidence and accomplishments, CEOs are not immune to The Zajonc Effect.

Because it's my duty to create differentiated brand names for my clients, I have to counteract their instinctive aversion to the new and unfamiliar. To do that, I use these presentation techniques:

Repetition

When presenting a candidate brand name, I repeat it at least 3 times. As clients hear the name over and over, it becomes familiar. Sometimes, I get sneaky: If there's a candidate name I'll be recommending, and if it's a real word, I'll casually and naturally include the word when chatting with the client before the meeting starts. By merely hearing the word earlier, a client is more likely to accept it when it's presented as a candidate name. Exposure research shows this is actually the best way to foster familiarity.

The mere-exposure effect is amplified if stimuli, rather than being consciously perceived, are perceived without awareness.

Names that the client rejects in a first naming presentation have a funny way of coming back in favor during later presentations. No longer strange and unfamiliar, these names get a second chance with a second look.

Analogy

Clients become more comfortable with a candidate name if they think a company has already succeeded using a similar approach. Showing a simple list of successful brands that are comparable to the candidate name in style, metaphor or construction, makes the unfamiliar name seem familiar and pre-proven. Care must be taken in framing the category of the name and the selection of analogous brands; the candidate name should not seem derivative or undifferentiated in that context.

Here's an example: At Landor, I was part of the team who worked with Earthlink to create a name for their municipal wi-fi service. Our immediate clients guided us, made decisions on name candidates, and determined what should be the recommended finalist. But they didn't have the authority to render a final decision on the one go-to-market name. That responsibility rested with the executive team who would have the final recommended name unveiled to them.

Unveiling a final name to decision makers who have had no involvement is not exactly a recipe for success.

The recommended name for Earthlink's wi-fi service was Feather. Despite our clients' enthusiasm, I was concerned by how their senior executives might react. Something told me that the executive team, all men, in Georgia, might not cotton to Feather. It would seem too light and airy. In their eyes, they were building communications infrastructure for the future, not...feathers.

I used analogy to frame Feather as a strong, leader brand by placing it in a list with these actual brand names:

Shell
BlackBerry
Caterpillar
Sun
Feather
Orange
Canopy

The technique worked. One of the executives said, "Gosh, what's a Shell? It's light, small, delicate and it's got nothing to do with their business. But they're huge." If Shell can be big and strong, so can Feather.

That's the power of analogy.

Context

A name presentation should help an audience suspend disbelief. Words that clients have never seen as brands are not easily envisioned by them as brands. It's a namer's job to help the client imagine how a word on a page could become their brand. Some of this facilitated imagination is done through storytelling: the background and inspiration of the name, its fit with strategy, and the implications for identity, messaging, advertising, promotions, nomenclature, product design and so on.

But a thousand words can't do what one picture can. That's why I always show names in a real-world context, like a business card, building sign or package. The more realistic and credible the context, the more likely the client will see the candidate as a viable option. To avoid confounding variables, every name is presented in the same typeface in the same exhibit.

Text can provide further context. Just below the name exhibit, the first sentence of a press release includes the candidate name. By including multiple real-world contexts on a page, the client is better equipped to imagine the name as their name. And, repeating the name on a page fosters a sense of familiarity.


Instincts are essential for survival, but not every instinct should be followed. Our natural and protective fear of things different can also undermine our true best interests. When it comes to branding, your instinct can be your enemy. Fight fear of the unfamiliar as if the future of your brand hangs in the balance. Because it does.