It is short and easy to pronounce. Oh, and it stands out in the crowd. Beyond that, this name is about as bad as it gets.

In my career as a naming consultant, I’ve done a lot of company naming and product naming. UGG falls somewhere in between a product name and a company name, serving both roles in various scenarios. Every time I see this name, I think: these guys should have hired Catchword.

Why? Allow me to explain:

1) The name is phonetically identical to a common statement of discontent or dislike (”ugh”). Kind of like naming a new candy bar “Yuck”.

2) The name immediately recalls “ugly” (and in the mind of this naming consultant, so does the product itself).

3) They don’t own the .com domain. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t think this is such a problem. However, the folks who do apparently own the name (Viterra) are not using it. UGG should be able to procure it. Maybe they don’t want it?

4) Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, the term refers to a specific type of sheepskin boot and could be considered a generic term (a la “Duck Boots”). Ugg’s parent company is suing other companies who reference “UGH Boots” despite the fact that the terms has been used generically since the 50s and the trademark (in Australia) only dates to 1971. Catchword clients benefit from names that are ownable and defensible in their own right, without the petty squabbling they have been forced to use to protect this name.

So how does one reconcile the overwhelming success of this product with its less-than-stellar brand name? I have only three things to say. First, it is further evidence that a bad name won’t kill you (so long as you can get a Paris-Hilton-class celeb to model your product). Second, let those who dare to be different rejoice! If this brand has one thing going for it, it is that it really, truly stands out. I don’t usually recommend standing out for all the wrong reasons, but even standing out for the wrong reasons still counts as standing out. Lastly, this brand name offers further proof that there is no accounting for taste. The boots are almost as uggly as the (ugh) name. But what do I know?

Tags: clothes naming, clothing branding, clothing brands, fashion brands, fashion naming
Posted in Brand Naming | No Comments

I have a twin sister. Debbi. There she is in the photo! She loves clothes. So much so that she opened her own clothing store. Figuring she wouldn’t have much personal use for men’s suits and ties, she opened a high-end women’s boutique selling some of the most exclusive, sought after brands in fashion - mortgage your house kinda threads. I can’t afford anything in the place, but then again, I don’t look very good in baby doll dresses.

I remember a couple years ago when she first started to think of names for the store. Name development specialist that I am, I threw in some candidates. Got Caché? Arm and a Leg. Sky-high Fashion. Deb’s Duds, and others. Surprisingly, no winners. Instead, she was focused on the name “Suede”. I remember asking, well, are you gonna carry much suede in the store? If not, that name is probably misleading. And then my sister, my smarter half, proceeded to lesson me in the business of naming. Mark (she said) - the word evokes the kind of associations I want people to have with my store. It sounds rich, luxurious, and sophisticated. It’s just one syllable and I think most people know how to spell the word. And just saying it makes you want to try something on!

Okay, I get that. But (I countered), don’t you think because suede is a fabric that manufacturers use to make, um, clothing, that people could get the wrong idea about your, um, inventory? Wouldn’t another word with the same or similar associations, perhaps borrowed from another industry, make more sense? I mean, if you can avoid the possibility of confusion, don’t you want to?

Silence. Silence. Silence. And then she ended the conversation like she ends most of our sibling disagreements: with a “no”. Of course she continued the lesson though. Silly brother, she said in the most patronizing tone (and I’m older by 9 minutes – the nerve!). I don’t have aspirations of going national! I’d be happy with one, maybe two (okay, three) stores in Westchester County, New York. This is a relatively small community, and my store’s success will be driven by word-of-mouth and repeat customers. Sure, the name presents an initial hurdle (more like a detour sign, Deb), but I think over time my customers will forget what the name implies about my inventory and focus on all those wonderful, rich associations that suede evokes!

Of course I offered her a job at Catchword on the spot. Okay, I didn’t, but she was pretty convincing, and I was impressed that she had given the name so much thought. She’s been in business now for over two years and the store was voted best new women’s boutique in Westchester in 2007 (paaaa-lugggg).

So it would seem the name hasn’t “ruined the outfit”, but I’m inclined to think her success has more to do with her taste in clothing than her naming savvy. In my opinion, even if you don’t aspire to global retail dominance, it makes sense to lead with a name with as few faux pas’ as possible. Suede does evoke wonderful associations, but it’s too suggestive of a specific type of clothing product (one which is scarcely found in the store). It’s misleading, and if the store’s focus or Deb’s aspirations for growth change (it may be helpful to know that my sister rearranges her living room on a near weekly basis) the name could pigeonhole her, or just become an unnecessary drag. I’m ecstatic for her success (no one deserves it more), and I think the name succeeds on numerous levels. I just wish it succeeded on all levels.

Tags: clothes naming, clothing brand names, retail naming, store naming
Posted in Brand Naming, Branding, Catchword, Company Naming | 2 Comments