Naming billion dollar companies isn’t just vibes, here’s the science behind it.
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖A name is the highest frequency leverage point for a brand, compounding its value over time.
- ❖The 'right name' creates asymmetric advantage by getting attention, holding attention (processing fluent), and being surprising.
- ❖Avoid 'comfortable' or 'popular' names; they lead to invisibility in the marketplace.
- ❖The naming process involves creative curiosity, deep dives into category, product, and consumer, and asking specific 'winning' questions.
- ❖Quantity leads to quality in name generation; aim for thousands of ideas, not dozens.
- ❖Brainstorming is ineffective; small, two-person teams or individuals generate better names.
- ❖Employ 'three-team' approach: one team knows everything, one adds an unrelated ingredient, one works on a completely different category.
- ❖Sound symbolism matters: letters like K, P, B, Z convey speed and reliability.
- ❖Manage creative teams by reframing criticism as problem-solving (e.g., 'I wish we could make that so it wasn't expensive?').
- ❖Embrace 'polarizing' names; they indicate energy and distinctiveness, avoiding the 'comfort trap'.
- ❖Changing a bad name does not typically lead to a loss of equity if the launch is enthusiastic and tells a clear story of benefit.
Insights
1The Strategic Power of the 'Right Name'
A company's name is its most frequently used and longest-lasting brand element, offering 'highest frequency leverage.' The difference between an 'okay' name and the 'right name' is its ability to create an asymmetric strategic advantage. This advantage compounds over time, making the brand more powerful and recognizable.
The guest cites examples like Impossible Burger and Swiffer, noting that a name 'doesn't do everything, but the right name can launch something.' ()
2Three Pillars of an Effective Name
A truly effective name must achieve three things: 1) Get attention (crucial in today's crowded market), 2) Hold attention (be 'processing fluent,' meaning easily understood and pronounced with an inherent meaning), and 3) Be surprising (unexpected, not comfortable or popular, to stand out).
The guest states, 'It does really three things for you. First off, you have to get attention... Secondly, you got to hold their attention... it has to be processing fluent... And the third thing is... has to be surprising, not comfortable, not popular.' ()
3Swiffer vs. Ready Mop: A Case Study in Naming Impact
Procter & Gamble's 'Swiffer' (developed by the guest's firm) became a $5 billion brand, while Clorox's 'Ready Mop' (a 'comfortable' name) achieved only a couple hundred million. The guest attributes 90-120% of the difference in the first year to the name, which enabled Swiffer to break through, generate retailer interest, and redefine the cleaning category.
The guest details how P&G wanted 'ProMop' but settled on 'Swiffer' after their firm identified it wasn't a mop and needed 'fun.' Clorox launched 'Ready Mop' around the same time. 'Swiffer is a $5 billion brand. I think the Clorox's Ready Mop is a couple hundred million.' ()
4The 'Creative Curiosity' Naming Process
The firm's process is driven by 'creative curiosity.' It begins with landscape analysis (identifying what *not* to do), deep product and consumer understanding (ultimate benefit), and then a series of questions: 'How do you define winning?', 'What do you have to win?', 'What do you need to win?', and 'What do we need to say?'. This articulates a strategic framework for the name.
The guest outlines the process for a hypothetical fiber brand: 'First thing we would do for you is we'd say, 'Okay, well, let's look at the category... we would find a lot of fiber this or something fiber and we would say that's not the way to go.' Then 'we would look now hard at your product... Then we would look to the consumers... Then we say, okay, we go through a little series of questions... First, we say, okay, how do you define winning here?' ()
5Why Brainstorming Fails and Two-Person Teams Excel
Traditional brainstorming sessions are ineffective for generating quality names due to peer pressure and a 'cascade of evaluation' that stifles creative flow. The firm found through 18 months of research that the best names come from individuals or small, two-person teams working internally, as they are 'inside' the project and can maintain focus without external judgment.
The guest states, 'What's the problem with brainstorming? Well, first off, you have... peer pressure... and then you the stopping that cascade of evaluation when you have... four or five or six people... It's just is it's a slow slow grind.' He explains they stopped brainstorming and only use two-person teams. ()
6Leveraging Sound Symbolism in Naming
Beyond semantics, the actual sounds and letters in a name carry inherent meaning and perception. Certain letters, like K, P, B, and Z, are perceived as 'strong' and can convey qualities like reliability and speed. Advanced software can analyze names based on these phonetic properties to align with desired brand attributes.
The guest confirms K is a 'power letter' and explains, 'P and K and B. Those sounds are if you want something reliable and fast, you you're going to at least formulate that into your names.' He adds that their software 'predict' can sort names based on perceived speed by looking for letters like D, P, and Z. ()
Bottom Line
To manage creative teams effectively, reframe criticism as a problem-solving challenge rather than a rejection. Instead of 'that's too expensive,' say 'I wish we could make that so it wasn't expensive.' This shifts the dynamic from judgment to collaboration, tapping into humans' innate desire to solve problems.
This approach fosters a culture of psychological safety and continuous improvement, encouraging team members to iterate and refine ideas rather than shutting down after initial feedback. It prevents good ideas from being discarded prematurely due to perceived limitations.
Implement 'problem-solving propositions' in all creative feedback loops. Train managers to use phrases like 'How do we modify that so it's legally available?' or 'I wouldn't have thought of that, now how can we make it work?' to empower teams and unlock more innovative solutions.
Actively seek 'synchronicity' – connecting seemingly irrelevant things – to spark creative breakthroughs. This involves deliberately exposing oneself to unrelated information (e.g., reading magazines outside one's field) and suspending logic to find unexpected connections relevant to a project.
Most creative processes focus on direct relevance, but true innovation often emerges from the synthesis of disparate ideas. This method forces the brain to make novel associations, leading to unique perspectives and insights that wouldn't arise from conventional research.
Integrate 'synchronicity sessions' into creative workflows. Encourage teams to spend dedicated time exploring unrelated domains (e.g., art, history, different industries) and then brainstorm how those insights could apply to their current project. This can be a structured exercise to break creative blocks.
The 'Comfort Trap' is a major pitfall: choosing names that are 'familiar' and 'safe' often leads to 'invisibility' in the market, despite achieving internal consensus. Polarizing names, which generate high energy and strong opinions (even negative ones), indicate distinctiveness and potential for breakthrough.
Internal resistance or strong, even negative, reactions to a name might be a sign of its potential power and originality, rather than a reason to discard it. Overcoming the urge for universal comfort can lead to a name that truly stands out.
When evaluating names, specifically identify and analyze 'polarizing' options. Instead of immediately rejecting them, explore the source of the energy and how that distinctiveness could be leveraged. Educate stakeholders on the 'Comfort Trap' and the value of names that spark strong reactions, even if they're not universally loved internally.
Opportunities
AI-Powered Naming & Brand Strategy Platform
Develop a sophisticated AI platform that goes beyond basic name generation. It should integrate linguistic principles, sound symbolism, cognitive science, and trademark databases. The platform would generate thousands of names, then use AI to 'predict' performance based on desired attributes (e.g., speed, reliability, memorability, processing fluency), helping human experts narrow down to the 'right' names and providing proof-of-concept visualizations.
Venture Studio for 'Name-First' Companies
Establish a venture studio that identifies and acquires compelling, available brand names (like 'Phase Change' mentioned by the guest) and then builds companies around those names. This flips the traditional model, leveraging the inherent power and market potential of a strong name as the foundational asset, rather than an afterthought.
Key Concepts
Asymmetric Advantage through Naming
A name, when chosen correctly, can provide a disproportionately large benefit or competitive edge compared to its initial investment or perceived importance. This advantage compounds over time, making the brand more memorable, distinctive, and valuable in the marketplace.
Processing Fluency
A name's ability to be easily understood and processed by the brain. It's not just about pronunciation, but about having an inherent 'understandability' that makes it familiar yet still interesting enough to capture and hold attention.
Surprisingly Familiar
A creative strategy for naming where a word or concept is familiar enough to be easily processed by the brain, but its application in a specific context makes it unexpected and attention-grabbing. This balance helps overcome the brain's natural laziness while sparking interest.
Quantity Leads to Quality (in Creative Generation)
The principle that generating a vast number of ideas, even 'trash' or seemingly bad ones, is essential to eventually uncover truly original and high-quality solutions. Stopping too early (e.g., after 50-100 names) prevents reaching the breakthrough ideas.
The Comfort Trap
The tendency for companies and founders to choose 'safe,' 'comfortable,' or 'popular' names that lack distinctiveness. While these names may achieve internal consensus, they often lead to invisibility in the market, failing to capture attention or create a memorable brand identity.
Approximate Thinking
An approach to fostering creativity where individuals are given permission to generate ideas that are 'bizarre, absurd, illegal,' or merely 'approximate' and not fully baked. This encourages divergent thinking without immediate judgment, leading to a spike in creative output.
Lessons
- When naming, first analyze the competitive landscape to identify what *not* to do, ensuring your name stands out from existing conventions.
- Separate the creative generation phase from the evaluation phase. Encourage a high volume of ideas, even 'bizarre' ones, before narrowing down and judging their viability.
- To foster creativity in your team, use problem-solving language instead of direct criticism. Phrases like 'I wish we could make that work' or 'How can we modify this?' encourage constructive thinking.
- Deliberately seek 'synchronicity' by exposing yourself to unrelated information (e.g., reading diverse magazines) to spark unexpected connections and unique naming insights.
- If considering a rebrand, understand that changing a bad name does not typically lead to a loss of market equity, provided the new name is launched with enthusiasm and a clear story of benefits.
The 'Creative Curiosity' Naming Process for a New Product
**1. Landscape Analysis (What NOT to Do):** Research existing names in your category. Identify common patterns, themes, and descriptive names. Formulate a hypothesis that your name should deliberately avoid these conventions to stand out.
**2. Product & Consumer Deep Dive:** Thoroughly understand your product's unique attributes and, more importantly, the 'ultimate benefit' it provides to consumers. For example, for fiber, the benefit might be 'feeling lighter,' not just 'digestion.'
**3. Define 'Winning' & Strategic Needs:** Ask your team (and yourself) a series of questions: 'How do you define winning with this product?', 'What do you have to win (product features)?', 'What do you need to win (market breakthrough)?', and 'What do we need to say (key message)?'. This clarifies the strategic objectives for the name.
**4. Broad Idea Generation (Treasure Hunt):** Explore diverse sources for name inspiration, including Latin/Greek roots, mythology, the periodic table, and abstract concepts related to the 'ultimate benefit' (e.g., for 'lightness,' explore aerodynamics, anti-gravity, air). Generate thousands of ideas, not just a few dozen.
**5. Multi-Perspective Generation (Three-Team Approach):** Divide your creative efforts into distinct 'teams' or perspectives. One team focuses on the core product, another adds an unrelated attribute (e.g., 'fiber + energy'), and a third works on a completely different, unrelated category (e.g., 'athletic performance'). This ensures a wide range of name types.
**6. Refine and Test for Effectiveness:** Narrow down the list based on the three pillars: originality, processing fluency, and surprising nature. Use sound symbolism (e.g., strong consonants for speed) to align with desired brand attributes. Conduct legal/trademark checks and linguistic reviews for global markets. Finally, present names in a 'proof of concept' (e.g., a mock news headline) to assess believability and market impact.
Notable Moments
The host, Sam, initially challenges the guest, stating he doesn't believe naming is that important, setting up the entire episode as a debate for the guest to win.
This establishes the core tension and purpose of the podcast, framing the guest's expertise as a direct counter to a common entrepreneurial skepticism about branding.
The guest reveals that every successful name displayed behind him (Blackberry, Impossible Burger, Swiffer, Sonos, Febreze) was initially rejected by clients.
This highlights the 'comfort trap' and the difficulty clients have in recognizing truly innovative names that challenge conventions, underscoring the need for expert guidance and persistence in branding.
The guest recounts how Andy Grove (former Intel CEO) praised a name for being 'polarizing,' stating that it meant the name 'has energy to it.'
This anecdote provides a powerful endorsement for embracing names that generate strong, even divided, opinions, directly challenging the common desire for universal consensus and reinforcing the idea that distinctiveness often comes with initial discomfort.
The guest describes how he convinced the Blackberry client, who initially rejected the name, by highlighting its sound symbolism (reliable 'B' sound), cross-language recognition, and crucially, the fact that 'competitors would never have the courage to put Blackberry on a device.'
This illustrates the strategic value of a name that not only performs well linguistically but also acts as a competitive differentiator by being bold and unexpected, making it difficult for larger, more conservative rivals to imitate.
Quotes
"Nothing that you will do in your brand will be used more often or for longer than your name."
"The difference between an okay name and the right name that actually creates a strategic advantage. Our goal is to always create asymmetric advantage."
"It has to be surprising, not comfortable, not popular. There's something unexpected about it."
"Swiffer is a $5 billion brand. I think the Clorox's Ready Mop is a couple hundred million. There you go. Do you think that the What percentage of the difference do you think was the name? I think the name makes all the difference in that first I'm going to say 90 to 120 to the first 12 months."
"Your current competitors who are all big companies would never have the courage to put Blackberry on a device."
"This is a good name because it is so polarizing, that means it has energy to it, there's energy inside."
"We have never seen that as evidence in the marketplace. Never. I want to emphasize that. Provided that their launch is done with enthusiasm and they and they have a story to tell that we were here and now we're going this way and the benefits for you are A, B, and C."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
US Pilot RESCUED + Trump's BRUTAL Iran Warning | PBD #771
"This episode covers the daring rescue of US pilots in Iran, Trump's aggressive warnings to Iran, the economic impact of global conflicts, and controversial political statements, all framed through a highly opinionated lens."
Growing Your Passion into a Business with Oprah and Jürgen Ingels
"Tech entrepreneur and venture capitalist Jürgen Ingels shares 50 practical lessons from his book 'Start, Grow, Sell' on building and scaling a business, from managing finances to cultivating passion."
Ivanka Trump: I Learned What Most People Never Do at 9 Years Old!
"Ivanka Trump reveals how growing up in the public eye, navigating high-stakes business, and serving in government shaped her unique approach to resilience, leadership, and intentional living."
“Chocolate C*KE!” - Ex-FBI Most Wanted Kingpin on Sicarios, Smuggling & Power | Owen Hanson • 405
"Former USC athlete Owen Hanson recounts his transformation from a rule-abiding kid to an international drug kingpin, his decade in federal prison, and his current path to redemption through legitimate business."