Putting the Brand Name in Its Right Place

Companies are often preoccupied with the task of choosing a name for a brand. It can be a delicate task with different considerations to make (e.g., cognitive, legal, cultural). However, there are three basic requirements that a brand name must hold to at the outset: being memorable, having a sound pleasant to the ear, and being easy to pronounce. Subsequently, it is notable that the brand name is essentially a precursor to attaching additional and more profound meanings to the brand through a network of associations (e.g., product attributes, personality, users), further supported by other brand elements that identify the brand (visual and audial), and marketing actions (e.g., pricing, choice of offline and online channels, image advertising). It is important, therefore, to establish the right balance when investing in research for supporting the decision of naming a brand vis-à-vis other dimensions of the brand strategy.

Brand names have frequently been chosen in regard to the concrete product linked to the brand. Hence, the brand name has often been descriptive of the product functions or its physical attributes. Additionally, companies have been founded, especially in earlier years (before the 1950s), under names that ascribe to their initial products. These practices tend to be constraining over time.

As remarked by Kapferer [1], brands are not supposed to describe products but rather to distinguish them. Names that are too tightly descriptive of the particular product to which the name is assigned can be limiting later on when the company plans to broaden its activities and extend to other types of products, more or less connected with the original product. The descriptive name might then become an obstacle in the way to creating brand extensions. The descriptive name may also be limiting when the lifecycle of the product nears its end, whereupon the obsolete product is replaced by a “next generation” product with newer and different characteristics (e.g., features, ingredients, technologies). Kapferer suggested that the brand name “must serve to add an extra meaning, to convey the spirit of the brand“. Therefore, the role of the brand (name) is in differentiation, not description — differentiation of the brand may be based on facets beyond the physique of a product (e.g., culture, relationship, or personality) [1].

When the brand name does carry a meaning relevant to its identity, it can facilitate the addition of other associations that help to strengthen the brand; thus, it may be said that the brand name serves as a lever for developing the brand identity (or image) and expanding its meanings towards building brand equity. Yet, that is not a definite condition for a successful brand name. As long as the three vital requirements stated above are respected, the brand name may succeed as an anchor for attaching more associations by a myriad of other actions for developing a strong brand. For example, as often happens, companies may carry the names of their founders (e.g., Porche, Ford) or names that are variations on the founder’s name (e.g., Walmart after Sam Walton, Adidas after Adolf Dassler — founders that remain an inspiration for following generations in the company but the name gives no hint of what the company does or believes in). Nonetheless, there are brand names that have no literal meaning or provide just an implicit connotation, but they ‘click’ phonetically (e.g., Kodak, Kleenex, Xerox).

A brand name that suggests an idea, a value held by the brand, or a symbol (e.g., Apple, Virgin) — that is, names that represent more abstract concepts and convey the spirit of the brand — seem more suitable for representing a brand in the long run (i.e., by allowing more modifications and updates as times change). The nature of the name appropriate for a brand does depend, however, on the context, purpose and level of the brand in the overall brand architecture managed by the company. For instance, descriptive names associated more closely with products can be well-suited for subbrands. The subbrand is typically more dependent on a master brand, yet its name adds a clue about the specialisation of the subbrand, or adds a meaning to its master brand (i.e., an approach for enriching the meanings of upper-level master brands). Endorsed brands, on the other hand, are more independent, while they may gain from an endowment of credibility or assurance from the endorsing brand; hence a more abstract and inspirational name should give the endorsed brand more leeway to act and freedom for evolving. [2]

The point is that we should never keep our minds too rigid about rules for naming a brand. Think for example of the rather technical and blunt name of Microsoft (along with Windows and Office), quite a strong brand — eventually, beyond the pre-conditions for a solid brand name, the key is in the content of associations the brand succeeds in developing (e.g., attributes, abilities, usage experiences), and how they are built-up and sustain in customers’ minds (i.e., determining the strength of associations and the meanings that consumers or users assign to them).

Keller and Lehmann [3] consider the brand name together with other brand elements that may be utilised in identifying a brand, including logos and symbols, packaging, and slogans. They suggest six broad criteria for designing and choosing brand elements: (1) memorability; (2) meaningfulness; (3) aesthetic appeal; (4) transferability; (5) adaptability and flexibility over time; and (6) legal and competitive protectability. Transferability may span within and across product categories, across geographical and cultural boundaries (applicable in particular in global branding), and across segments. Keller and Lehmann turned focus to integrating a set of brand elements, verbal and visual mainly, and proposed research questions about the contributions and differential effects (e.g., on memory) of the various possible brand elements [2]. The visual brand elements seem to receive much more attention (e.g., in research) among nonverbal elements, though they may also include audial elements of sounds, tunes or melodies. Brand elements, including the name, that are more fluent (easy to perceive), meaningful and aesthetically appealing, are more likely to stand-out as identifiers, but also becoming more memorable elements and effective as anchor nodes or cues in connection with a broader set of brand associations.

Choosing names for global branding is among the more complex challenges because it involves many of the criteria to account for. Foremost, companies need to address the transferability of brand names and other elements across geographical regions, countries and cultures. In global or multinational branding the same exact brand name can be used everywhere (maximising global impact through unity) — but it is not necessarily the right strategy; in some cases, it may not be appropriate or viable. Adjustments may be needed due to lingual and cultural issues, allowing for variants of the original name (e.g., Esso / Exxon) or other expressions of its meaning. In fact, adjustments likewise often have to be made in the features of products and services to accommodate differences between countries and cultures worldwide.

John Hoepnner (president of Brand Name Quest LLC) addresses some of the critical and sensitive issues when naming brands designated for global marketing [4]. He distinguishes between three approaches: (1) using the same English name universally; and two different types of adaptation: (2) translation of the original name to a semantically equivalent name in the local language (i.e., to preserve the original meaning); and (3) transliteration, applicable when the original name has little semantic meaning and the aim is to create a phonetically similar name in another language’s script that will sound distinct. Each strategy has advantages but applying it requires special considerations such as: pronunciation of an English name by speakers of other languages (‘universal’); respecting local idioms and lingo-cultural nuance (‘translation’); avoiding unintended meanings in the adopting language (‘transliteration’).

Hoepnner recommends a number of steps in naming research, including linguistic screening (e.g., take care about slang meanings), cultural evaluation (e.g., fitting cultural norms and values), trademark screening (i.e., legal protection, avoiding local infringement risks), and eventually performing quantitative name testing (e.g., consumer preferences and acceptance of prospect names). Taking these steps may be crucial for catching on potential sensibilities in time. A larger brand portfolio with more of the brands being marketed globally faces management with more difficult questions regarding the strategy of brand architecture, which may subsequently affect naming decisions in different specific regions and countries.

The brand name is at the foundation of the knowledge consumers hold about a brand, and therefore it is unquestionably essential to ensure that an appropriate name, effective as a cue, is chosen through research and planning. Yet, it would be unwise to put all the burden of the brand potential on its brand name. First, there are additional brand elements that the name should not be handled in isolation from them. Second, the major body of brand knowledge resides in the network of associations consumers learn, build and hold about the brand in long-term memory, and that largely shapes and influences their disposition and behaviour towards a brand. Third, naming decisions are affected by the context of relationships among brands in an overall strategy of brand architecture.

Different approaches to forms and styles of names can be considered, but there is not a single answer for what an ‘appropriate’ brand name would be. It should fundamentally be fluent and memorable, have a pleasant sound to the ear, easy to pronounce, preferably meaningful, and if taken along with adjoining visual elements, we may expect them also to be aesthetically appealing. However, there is little justification to seek a ‘perfect name’; the effort invested in choosing a name for the brand should be sensibly bounded. More resources should be reasonably directed to research and planning concerned with other dimensions of brand strategy that are expected to have impact on consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, experiences and behaviours with respect to the brand, and that contribute to brand equity.

References:

[1] Launching New Brands (Chapter 4); Jean-Noel Kapferer, 1997; Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term (2nd edition), UK: Kogan Page (see section: Choosing a Name for a Strong Brand, pp. 132-136)

[2] The Brand Relationship Spectrum (Chapter 4); David A. Aaker (& Erich Joachimsthaler), 2000; Brand Leadership; UK: Pocket Books (2009)

[3] Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities; Kevin L. Keller and Donald R. Lehmann, 2006; Marketing Science, 25 (6), pp. 740-759 (see section: Integrating Brand Marketing)

[4] “Would You Buy a Car Named Wanker? Why Global Brands Need Local Research“, John Hoepnner, Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, July/August 2025, pp. 70-72 (view in magazine format look here)