The business goals matrix feels weird in some places; is a deviant name really more SEO-friendly than a descriptive name? Why wouldn't an associative name be trademarkable?
Do they address anywhere about how your company size, existing user base or marketing budget has an influence?
I feel if you're launching something solo without an existing user base and little budget, you should probably side with a descriptive name or maybe associative name (as they're called in the article) over anything clever.
If you're Apple or Google, you could pick any name you want and people are still going to talk about it + try to understand what it is. If you're solo and hoping to grow from organic marketing and word of mouth though, I think it's a big missed opportunity to pick a name that doesn't somewhat describe the product.
For example, you can pretty accurately guess what "hackernews" is over "slashdot". A mention of hackernews seen on a webpage is then more likely to get clicked or Googled for because you're not forcing the user to spend more time figuring out what it is, especially when the name appears with little context e.g. "I saw it on hackernews yesterday".
Edit: I'm not talking about SEO here. I'm talking about when your app name is seen on a web page or mentioned in an online forum, and if a descriptive name has an advantage here.
That’s not how companies are born. The brand name is not chosen at the beginning but it’s built over time.
I guarantee you, if Apple was called Orange, it wouldn’t be any different. It’s the same with logos. As far as you stay away from obvious infractions such as phallic or derogatory names, you’re good to go.
Spend time adding meaning and goodwill to the brand name instead of the other way around. Build a great company and focus on that.
Apple is such a generic name but it survives the SEO and a bunch of other no-no’s in most branding guides.
We’ve got enough advice on brand names. There is an article or two on HN and it’s frankly not that interesting or valuable.
9 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] threadI feel if you're launching something solo without an existing user base and little budget, you should probably side with a descriptive name or maybe associative name (as they're called in the article) over anything clever.
If you're Apple or Google, you could pick any name you want and people are still going to talk about it + try to understand what it is. If you're solo and hoping to grow from organic marketing and word of mouth though, I think it's a big missed opportunity to pick a name that doesn't somewhat describe the product.
For example, you can pretty accurately guess what "hackernews" is over "slashdot". A mention of hackernews seen on a webpage is then more likely to get clicked or Googled for because you're not forcing the user to spend more time figuring out what it is, especially when the name appears with little context e.g. "I saw it on hackernews yesterday".
Edit: I'm not talking about SEO here. I'm talking about when your app name is seen on a web page or mentioned in an online forum, and if a descriptive name has an advantage here.
Why? SEO is really about making stuff easy for a computer + users to understand.
A descriptive name is sure to have SEO benefits though, but I was more talking from user understanding when they see the name without much context.
I guarantee you, if Apple was called Orange, it wouldn’t be any different. It’s the same with logos. As far as you stay away from obvious infractions such as phallic or derogatory names, you’re good to go.
Spend time adding meaning and goodwill to the brand name instead of the other way around. Build a great company and focus on that.
Apple is such a generic name but it survives the SEO and a bunch of other no-no’s in most branding guides.
We’ve got enough advice on brand names. There is an article or two on HN and it’s frankly not that interesting or valuable.