In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, a frustrated, frightened and ultimately doomed Juliet wonders aloud, “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” Why, she pleads, must her beloved bear the one name – Montague – forbidden to any of her Capulet clan.
Juliet argues to her unseen Romeo that names themselves have no meaning:
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet ….
Romeo and Juliet (via HL42)
But Juliet was mistaken. Montague and Capulet are brands, as surely as if they were Coke and Pepsi. And like Coke and Pepsi they have brand equities, which are the attributes (values, personality, meaning, etc.) that are the essence of the brand, and brand promises, which is what the brand will do for its audience. (Part of the tragedy of the play is that both families have the same brand equities – pointless jealousy and excessive self-regard – and the same brand promise – the destruction of the other).
Brands communicate their equities and promises in many ways, from their logo to their tag line. Their names can have branding value, too. Many brands have names that describe their business. This naming strategy has several advantages, not least that it makes it easy for consumers to understand what the brand is and does. It also frees up marketing resources to communicate brand messages rather than focus on the basics of the business.
The problem with descriptive names, however, is that similar businesses can use similarly descriptive names. At best descriptive names risk diluting a brand’s uniqueness (unless it has a unique description) and at worst they can lead to consumer confusion. Also, descriptive names tend not to be memorable and, inherently, they do not do much to convey brand messages. We should not forget, however, that many of the world’s strongest and best-known brand names, from IBM to UPS, are (or began as) descriptive.
The other end of the naming spectrum is often referred to as “evocative” names. As the term suggests, these names are meant to evoke a response that relates to the brand’s positioning. There are many ways to do this, which makes naming something of a black art. Names can consist of real or invented words, with real or invented spelling; words from modern or classical languages; single or compound words; and so on. Some names try to embody the entire brand while others focus on one key aspect of the positioning, such as the consumer experience. In addition to their messaging component, names have to be easy to read and say and have a look and sound that is appropriate to the brand.
Evocative names are the flip side of descriptive names: they are unique and can be memorable, but it takes more resources to communicate what the brand is and does as well as the essential brand messages. However, once that is accomplished the name is more likely to remain in the audience’s consciousness and be associated with the desired brand positioning. Many newer brands, from Amazon to Google to Yahoo, have evocative names, but this naming strategy is far from an online-only phenomenon. Several companies have used evocative names as part of a re-branding strategy, such as Altria (ex-Phillip Morris), Tenet (ex-National Medical Enterprises) and Accenture (ex-Andersen Consulting).
Why did we choose an evocative rather than a descriptive naming strategy? And how did we come up with Zavee? Our company was originally called Charge Rewards, which is still the name of our holding company. That name accurately describes one important element of our business – a rewards program that uses registered credit/debit cards – but was unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, it says nothing about social shopping, online marketing or social giving, all of which are elements of our business that are both very significant and highly differentiating. Second, it might be difficult to protect against another registered-card loyalty program that wanted to use a similar name. Third, it simply isn’t very memorable or exciting.
We wanted our new name to be unusual and memorable, and suggest in some way what we were trying to accomplish. We weren’t convinced that any descriptive name could easily encompass our business, and we didn’t want our name either to limit us (like Charge Rewards did) or confuse our audiences. We worked with two agencies to develop a new name, briefing their teams with both a description of our business and a statement of our brand positioning. They came up with literally scores of possibilities, which we discussed and analyzed before coming up with three finalists. We ultimately decided on Zavee. One of the things that sold us on the name was the way it embodies a key brand promise. Our platform helps merchants market smarter; helps consumers shop smarter; and helps causes raise funds smarter. That focus on making communities smarter led one of our agencies to the notion of “savvy”, which they transformed into the more unique, interesting and memorable “Zavee”.
The Zavee takeaway:
- Juliet’s wrong. Names matter.
- Descriptive names are generally more intuitive for the consumer and less expensive to market, but less memorable, harder to protect and less valuable to the brand.
- Evocative names are generally less intuitive for the consumer and more expensive to market, but more memorable, easier to protect and more valuable to the brand.
