HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why not use a stupid name for a startup?

1 points by prohobo ↗ HN
I'm rebranding a project I'm working on, because someone pointed out that the name conflicts with existing projects.

For a while now I've been hearing from people that "the name doesn't matter". The reason people associate Apple, Google, Blender, Firefox, etc. with something good is simply because the products those names represent are good. The point is to actually just come up with a brandable name that's short, easy to say, isn't taken by another brand, and maybe has something to do with the actual product.

So while I've been brainstorming ideas for an app name, I got a little frustrated and came up with this:

"Time Saver 3000".

That name is a little long, but it made me laugh at how stupid it is - yet also straightforward, and memorable.

Why aren't more projects named like that? What's wrong with using a silly, even stupid, name? Wouldn't it be a bit fashionable? Like breaking out of the mold and adding some whimsy to an industry where most app names sound like "Tasker" or "Taskly" or use Greek/Roman mythological names?

7 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] thread
jstx1
It's like showing up underdressed to a social event. Perhaps someone cool can pull it off and own it, but it's a bad idea for most people which is why it isn't the default advice.
prohobo
I'd say it's more like showing up to a masquerade ball in an unexpected outfit. The idea of having a brand name is as a proxy or front for the real product after all, not as a representation of who you are.

At Halloween parties, it's the most unexpected, elaborate, and whimsical costumes that get the most praise. Rarely do the people in those costumes need a high level of charisma to pull it off.

anenefan
As someone who was often searching for hardware / programs for other people back 20 years ago ... a distinct memorable name that does not blend in easy with common language were the easiest to locate relevant information. eg 2-cute time saver ...
prohobo
True, having two words in a name already makes searches much more difficult.
anenefan
I would assume that is getting at how it's now very hard to get search engines to find "strange unique" with hundreds of results with any sort of grouping, sometimes not even in the same part of the page. But still "strange unique" is better than "common common."

Hard to believe in early 00s I stopped bookmarking as using key words would land me where I wanted most of the time - google's engine was so good back then if you used its various switches to narrow down the search.