Under the header of product names I’ve never understood is Febreze. It’s a bit risky putting this kind of opinion out there, since P&G has done so well with its line of fabric and air fresheners. (And in fact, I almost like the idea of a grocery-aisle name that isn’t really word play, that isn’t totally logical…)

But really, why FEBreze instead of FABreze? The product’s connection to fabric is so obvious that not going with the Fab- prefix is a little like Windex being named Wandex.

What are the possible merits of Feb? Maybe the folks at P&G were trying to evoke a February breeze? Sure, there’s a shared “b” in Feb Breeze, but it’s such a chilly month. Maybreze is a nicer image.

Then there’s febrile and febricity — having a fever — but I’m pretty sure they weren’t going for that, either.

Febreze actually sort of takes me to pharmaceutical naming, where you might alter a vowel to avoid overpromising. (For example, Rogaine, the hair-growth treatment, is marketed as Regaine outside the U.S.) In this case, fab- might be construed as fabulous, and frowned upon by the FDA. If we were talking about an ingestible drug. Which we’re not.

So maybe it all comes down to trademark, and the need to avoid the product name Fab (the laundry detergent). That makes sense, except we namers usually try to avoid TM conflicts in a less indirect, obtuse, confusing, mystifying way.

I’m just sayin’.

Posted in Brand Naming, Language use, Uncategorized | No Comments

Like most new moms, buying a stroller was top on my list of baby purchases. I wanted something easy to use and most of all, safe and secure for my precious newborn. Working in NYC prior to my impending arrival, I noticed a unique stroller milling about the streets of NYC. From what I could tell, it looked like my dream stroller. However, when I found out the name, Bugaboo, it made me think twice.

“Bugaboo” encompassed everything I would least want my stroller to offer as it means “something that causes fear or worry.” Alternate definitions cite it as a synonym of a bogeyman, “an imaginary monster used to frighten children” (Source, dictionary.com). Not exactly baby-friendly sentiments. I understand that many of us may not be familiar with the term “bugaboo.” However, in my chosen profession as a “namer” I (need to) have an expansive vocabulary and I knew exactly what a “bugaboo” meant.

So what does this tell us with regards to new product naming? Sometimes the most successful names may be ones break through the clutter, that make us a little uncomfortable. For one, they end up being memorable. Second, if it’s not an ultra-common word, it may become synonymous with product. Additionally, these types of name are even more effective when some element of the name is evocative of the product itself; in this case, people may see baby “buggy” in Bugaboo. Another example of this type of name is “Fandango”, an online movie ticket site. The real meaning is a “lively Spanish dance” but people may just see “fan” and associate this with entertainment. In any case, evidently the Bugaboo name seems to work, as parents are willing to spend around $800 for one…obviously it’s not something that “causes fear or worry!”!

Posted in Language use, Product Naming, Uncategorized | No Comments

I just saw this linked from a friend’s LiveJournal - an online coffee purveyor called Les Beans. What a great company name! It’s a woman-owned company that sells organic and Fair Trade coffee - and they varieties also have fun names, like Salvador Dolly, Costa Rita, and Mocha Lisa. They also donate 10% of their profits to women’s charities.If you’re going to give your company a quirky, fun, and potentially edgy name, this is the way to do it.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

Remember Sean Combs and Jennifer Lopez? These names have seemed to fade from memory, replaced by more catchy nicknames. Most recently, Sean aka P. Diddy has announced a new monicker: Diddy.

That’s right, he dropped the “P.” for a shorter, more time-sensitive version.

According to the star, the change is to ease the confusion of his concert goers who don’t know whether to chant “Diddy” or “P. Diddy.” Apparently, the “P.” was getting between Diddy and his fans and now they’re all that much closer. (That pesky “P.”!!)

Let’s take a look back at the name change history of Mr. Diddy, or is it just Diddy?

1969 Born Sean John Combs
1994 Sean “Puffy” Combs becomes a record exec.
1995 Puffy goes by the name “Puff Daddy” as he begins to perform with Notorious B.I.G. and Mase
2001 In an attempt to shake the bad press of a trial and a breakup from Jennifer Lopez, Puff Daddy reinvents himself as “P. Diddy”
2005 To reinsert himself in the media spotlight, the P. is dropped.

And what about Ms. Lopez? She sports quite a history of name changes herself.

1969 Born Jennifer Lopez
2001 Decides to go by “J. Lo” to distance herself from her recent ex-boyfriend and his scandal
2002 Known to the tabloids as Bennifer as she and actor Ben Affleck start dating
2003 Quoted as saying she will be known both privately and professionally as “Jennifer Affleck” after her marriage to Ben
2005 Rumor has it that J. Lo will now be known as “Jennifer Anthony” after her marriage to actor/singer Marc Anthony

It’s interesting that these two stars have capitalized on the fact that a name change generates a good deal of press. For hollywood-types, this certainly is a way to keep your name in the headlines. The question is: how much is too much? When will the media and fans just tune out the name change stories? My guess is, with Diddy and perhaps even Mrs. Anthony, the fans already have.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

I was reading an article today about Justice Scalia making his rounds on the college-speech circuit. His speeches focus on interpretation of the Constitution (surprise surprise).

I noticed that Scalia labeled himself (and other judges like him) an “Originalist.” Essentially he believes that the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions are static documents that should be read the way they were written. And, when a question arises about what is written, the correct response is to refer back to other original documents that detail the Framers’ opinions. The opposite approach is to view the constitutions as living documents meant to be interpreted and adapted as times change.

Most amusing was that Scalia argued that judges shouldn’t be made political figures (clearly in response to the 10 far-right judges being denied positions because of their religious politics). And yet, he’s been stumping around the country promoting a conservative shift in America through his “originalist” principles.

The problem with this debate is that the opponents to the originalists are labeled as “activist judges” by the right. Judges who seek to further their political agenda through interpretation of the federal and state constitutions. However, the right is equally activist in this regard. Let’s unpack each of these terms a bit.

Other terms used for the originalist view include Traditionalist, Conservative, Moderate, etc. These are commonly used in speeches and the press to describe what Scalia and his ilk believe. These words have a fairly positive connotation for most: Time-honored tradition, family values of yester-year, conservative and moderate judges wearing black robes who thoughtfully do their jobs, laws written by people from a time when things were better.

Now what about the term “activist”? The loaded term recalls images of war protesters, people throwing red paint on fur-clad ladies, Greenpeace, etc. I’m certainly not condemning these groups. But much of conservative and Middle-America doesn’t understand activism. I grew up in conservative, Middle-America, where tradition is good and hippie protesters are bad. The term activist has a decidedly negative connotation for much of America. The term activist is thrown around like the term “bleeding-heart liberal” casting a very dark shadow on otherwise noble causes.

So what do we do? There are certainly other terms that can be applied to more accurately reflect the two types of judges. Progressive, Liberal, and Activist are too overly used and have been co-opted by the right to carry negative connotations. Terms like Modernist, Adaptive, Flexible, Interpretationist (not really a word, but could be used), Responsive, and Tolerant are all good words to describe judges who see the US and state constitutions as living documents.

And for Originalists? The terms Conservative, Moderate, and Traditionalist are currently widely in use. But what about terms like Ancestral, Historical, Conventional, Strict? These seem to convey the inflexible aspects of judges to the right and their unwillingness to adapt, without using negative prefixes or suffixes like “in” or “un.” Avoiding overtly negative terms and word parts is important for people to respond to the term and adopt it.

[Wikipedia: Originalism]
[Wikipedia: Activist]

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

Ofoto is one of the best names in the online photo sharing industry. There are several good competitive names, but Ofoto set the standard. Saying you used Ofoto to share your photos was like saying you use Google to search the web, Kleenex to blow your nose, or a Band-aid to cover a scratch.

But, years after Kodak purchased Ofoto, they’ve finally decided to do away with the Ofoto name, replacing it with far inferior Kodak EasyShare Gallery. While I understand that Kodak has supplanted the better name with their own in an effort to reinforce their brand name in the digital photography world, I still think it’s a waste of a good name.

Kodak EasyShare Gallery just doesn’t roll off the tongue. And EasyShare isn’t particularly unique enough by itself to replace Ofoto. Whatsmore, I really don’t see anyone saying, “Hey, check out my Kodak gallery.” In general, I think Kodak has made a bad move here. They may derive some small benefit from being associated with the digital photography trend, but the lack of a good branded name will surely hurt their word-of-mouth brand awareness.

I know I much prefer saying Shutterfly or Snapfish. Well see if that means I’ll actually become a convert.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

The home of the Boston Celtics, formerly known as the Fleet Center, is auctioning off its naming rights daily. Each day the high-bidder on eBay wins the right to name the facility for a day. All the proceeds go to charity.

Some of my favorites among the recent auction winners include:

YourCenter (February 10, 2005)
TerriersCenter (February 15, 2005)
Nocturnal Nannies Arena (February 27, 2005)
MyGrandma’sCoffeeCakesofNewEnglandCenter (March 6, 2005)
JackFirstenbergerCureAutismNowCenter (March 9, 2005)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Almost a year after acquiring Overture, the popular internet-search service, Yahoo! is scrapping the Overture brand for the more descriptive (and boring) Yahoo! Search Marketing Services. My guess is that it won’t be long before users tire of saying, “We should check out our Yahoo! Search Marketing Services stats this week,” and switch to the easier, “We should check out Yahoo! stats for the week.”

I’m reminded of another recent acquisition that scrapped the acquired brand in favor of a descriptive name. When FedEx purchased Kinko’s in February 2004, FedEx unveiled its plan to transition from Kinko’s to FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Center. Again, I’ll wager that it won’t take long before college kids are saying, “I need to go make copies at FedEx.”

This is likely the strategy behind Yahoo! and FedEx adopting such bland and descriptive names. They expect that customers won’t take to the lengthy name, and thus will adopt the parent name. This makes sense for a couple of reasons. It’s easier to manage one brand, rather than a umbrella brand with several additional proprietary brands underneath. It’s also easier to create clarity of brand messaging and positioning under one name.

Of course, Yahoo and FedEx shouldn’t discount the power of the consumer and their ties to the Overture and Kinko’s names. It was consumers who started shortening Federal Express to FedEx, and American Online to AOL, forcing official changes to both company’s names. Names and brands that come to have special meaning to the consumer are also hard to scrap. For example, I’ll always refer to the home of the 49ers as Candlestick Park, regardless of what corporate sponsor name it currently has; ditto with the Oakland Coliseum.

It’s also important to remember the lesson the British learned while attempting to rename their postal service. The new name Consignia was developed and adopted at great cost in 2001, much to the dislike of the population. The customer backlash was so great, that Consignia was dropped in 2003 in favor of a previous name that people were comfortable with, the Royal Mail.

Maybe we’ll be seeing Overture and Kinko’s back on the map again someday.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

“While I’ve picked up my guitar less than 10 times since college, I’ve become a sort of Dave Grohl of imaginary musicians, with enough names for a main band, several side projects and the supergroup I plan to form years from now with Dan the Automator and members of Journey.

My current Top 5 band names, in descending order of coolness:

5. Cabana Boy
4. Gondor Calls for Aid … And Rohan Will Answer!
3. M.C. Gordon Getty and the New Kennedys
2. Bastards!
1. Surefire Harbinger of Doom”
Got the perfect name for a band? It’s probably destined for failure, by Peter Hartlaub, SF Chronicle, January 26, 2005

Those are great names! I love reading about band names, and those band name generators you find online rock. But really, is it the music or the name?

Ringo: John thought of the name Beatles, and he’ll tell you about it now.
John: It’s just that it means Beatles, isn’t it, you know? That’s just a name, like “shoe.”
Paul: “The Shoes.” See, we could’ve been called “The Shoes,” for all you know.
(The Beatles: What’s in a Name?)

I think a good name for a band would be The Verbing Nouns.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments

“My drag queen name, for the record,” said Professor Ronald C. Butters of Duke University, speaking between academic paper presentations in a beige room on the second floor of the Oakland Marriott, “is Coco Butters.” Name Games: The semantics of sexuality, by Reyhan Hamanci, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 23, 2005

A great article about the American Name Society Meeting, and the really cool panel on names and sexuality. Oh, and there’s a couple of paragraphs about me. Good quotes, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments