Equally naturally, the need to "think names" emerged at BR/BAUEN — for a studio that employs design as its primary tool in building brand perception, and whose design methodology is multidisciplinary and capable of materializing ideas. With it, we embraced the capacity to project names — sometimes when beginning a project whose name could be harmful to brand perception, or when no defined name yet existed for the brand in question. In that case, the frequent demand was: "I need a good name for…"
As we specialized in Brand Identity, we came to understand that the name is the guiding thread for building identity. Thinking about names became fundamental — whether to create a new name or evaluate the capacity of a previously chosen name to meet the brand's needs. Today we understand that this is entirely contextual and depends on many factors. The process begins with a concise, analytical evaluation of perceptions, and we move toward name creation, both for the national and international market.
In this context, we have 3 key learnings:
1. The Name is a brand's primary asset;
The name has the responsibility of identifying the brand even before any graphic representation exists. Its verbal repetition is more frequent than its visual counterpart, and it holds our strongest memory associations. For this reason, it must be memorable within its context.
2. The Name is a brand's positioning identifier;
A name well-suited to the brand's audience creates a more cohesive communication path. How many examples of unsuitable names — conveying the wrong perception — do we see daily? Whether because they are too literal to the brand's activities, making the name limiting in many cases — or due to a lack of a "disaster check" regarding the name's meaning within the culture where it will be introduced.
3. The Name is substantial to a brand's narrative;
A name grounded in a concept and narrative aligned with brand strategy helps tell a meaningful story, building attraction and connection with its audience — with considerably less effort and investment.
How to create 'a good name'?
The first step is to understand that a good name's mission is to contextualize the balance between the following strategic factors:
A. Behavior B. Perception C. Economic Sector
The second step is to understand the many aspects involved in the process and the existing methodologies. Our approach over the last 8 years leads us to believe that there is no recipe that guarantees results, nor a single quality that defines a good name. The verbal repertoire of the professionals involved and an in-depth understanding of the 3 strategic points mentioned above are essential for creating and evaluating names.
There is no single quality of names for brands; what matters is context (quite complex and full of variables).
— Luis Feitoza, Designer and Naming Specialist
So, how do you evaluate 'a good name'?
In accordance with the strategic factors mentioned, we evaluate the following criteria:
1_ Registration 2_ Meaning 3_ Perception 4_ Memorability 5_ Adequacy 6_ Originality
How do we compare and present names to decision-makers? Visually.
Whenever we evaluate internally or present name options to clients, the need arises to compare the qualities of each name in order to establish which has the most potential against the criteria.
For the criteria to be effectively considered, we realized it is necessary to graphically visualize the qualities of names in order to compare them — without any stylistic or aesthetic indication that might influence the choice. This ensures that the evaluation is primarily perceptual, while the criteria comparison remains rational.
Our solution is to use a 'radar' whose function is to facilitate our comparative checklist, on a scale of 0 to 5 that allows us to establish the 'graphic silhouette' that measures the strength of the variables being evaluated.
We evaluate a total of 6 criteria, and the defined relevance for each depends on the definitions previously made regarding the balance between Behavior, Perception, and Economic Sector.
Registration
The primary eliminator in selections and searches, registration enables legal protection and exclusivity over the chosen name. Names with a low registration score are acceptable when the brand's territory of operation is small or when there is no future elasticity plan for the brand. Names with a high score are necessary when the goal is to reach a very large territory and the brand will be an asset across multiple products/services.
Meaning
A meaningful name can create easy connection with its audience, communicating the brand's positioning and tone of voice with agility and clarity. Names with a high meaning score may have a narrative path already pre-established, while names with a low meaning score may have more space to build their own narrative and a more original personality. It is worth noting that for a long time, meaning mattered little for consumer decisions. Today, in the age of communication, a name that means something — whether through historical context or created language — builds more effective value, as concern with a brand's essence is as significant as the quality of its product.
Perception
When we reach the shortlist, we evaluate the name based on people's perception, conducting qualitative research through groups and individual conversations. With this evaluation, we can measure the connection with the audience, the level of memorability, and also the alignment with the brand strategy developed.
A lower or higher level of perception at this stage of the project becomes valuable input for the project's continuation — when we visually materialize the brand identity. With the discovery of the name's perception, the measured points become equalization objectives within the visual identity, where we have the opportunity to fully balance the brand's perception.
Memorability
To determine a name's memorability, we analyze the functional and strategic factors of brand recall: easy or difficult to say, spell, write, understand, etc. The context and adequacy of each project determine how the name should be remembered. A short, quick, easy name may be the solution for many projects, but within a context of sophistication or an exclusive audience niche, for example, 'difficult' names may enable greater recall.
Beyond their function within verbal language, the visual characteristics of the name are also put to the test, as the aesthetics and graphic form of a name suit different strategies (a name with few letters tends to offer more space on packaging, for example).
Adequacy
Another evaluation that can show us an answer for equalizing verbal and visual identity is the analysis of strategy adequacy. This interpretation is answered primarily by the perception research carried out. At this point, a highly adequate name shows itself as an effective and "accurate" name for the project's objectives.
This evaluation (whether high or low) allows us to have a perspective on points to be studied for the full development of the brand identity. Highly adequate names can also be concerning, as a name may end up becoming too "thematic" or too specific for brand futures we cannot foresee. Names with low adequacy are also positive when elasticity and profile range prove less important.
A semantic word map can open up a range of possibilities and, most importantly, exclude/discover numerous names that already exist.
Originality
The originality factor is, in fact, our creation principle and guide for every project. Originality leads us to greater protection over the name, more memorability, better alignment with strategy (when it is also original), and so on. Original names have high memorability and much greater ease of use — for example, using the brand on the internet: exclusive names can secure shorter domains and social media handles without other profiles interfering in searches for the name. The more original the name, the easier it is for the brand to establish itself.
In this sense, an original result can be achieved through linguistic innovation, the result of a figure of speech in use, or, as in many cases, a new name within the brand's segment of activity. Brand names that will have broad territory, heavy digital communication investment, or great brand elasticity potential need solutions that do not clash with existing names or create future conflicts. The names that require less originality are those with a smaller territory of activity and a direct connection to the brand's product/service.
To conclude, I invite you to visit our Naming Archive, where we selected 35 names to share the experience we gained over the last 8 years. These are names we designed between 2015 and the first half of 2020. In addition to the names, we also have a visualization of other data we interpreted to verify our knowledge of names by location and the incidence of name types by brand market.
