Editorial: the difficulty with bad product names and what we will be able to learn from it

Nov 11th 2011
No Comments
respond
trackback

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Editorial: the difficulty with bad product names and what we will be able to learn from it

Product names generally fall into considered one of four different categories: good, safe, meaningless and bad. There is better categories to group them in, but we’ll use these for the point of this editorial. Within the first category I’d put something like Kindle, arguably the best new product names of the last ten years. iPhone and iPad, and their subsequent suffixed versions, are within the safe category. They’re perfectly fine names for a cellphone and a tablet, but they are not as original or distinct as iMac or iPod were, which I’d consider good (iPod nano, shuffle and touch, then again, are all safe names).

Within the meaningless category are such things as the MSI GT683DXR or ASUS XU6280, considered one of which I just made up. Some meaningless names may also be good of their simplicity — just like the Nokia N9 or Nikon D3S — but they’re still basically nothing greater than differentiators. It’s an appropriate option.

The names aren’t just bad — they’re noise.

Within the bad category are nearly all of smartphones released up to now few years. Rezound. Rhyme. Vivid. Epic. Sensation. Thrill. Skyrocket. Conquer. Triumph. Enlighten. Infuse. Prevail. Arrive. Are you able to name the corporate behind each phone? And people are only a couple of examples from this year. The names aren’t just bad — they’re noise. Some names might fall right into a fifth, slightly murkier okay category, but there are certainly more phones (and, increasingly, tablets) within the bad category than the other, and I’d argue that’s an indication of a bigger problem.

Editorial: the difficulty with bad product names and what we will be able to learn from it A product’s name is a part of its identity. In the event you tell someone you’ve an iPhone 4, nearly all people know what it’s, and they’re going to know it’s made by Apple. That’s largely due to phone’s success, without a doubt , and Apple’s effective marketing, however the name isn’t a trifling factor. Apple has made five different phones now, and every successive one has helped to accumulate the iPhone brand. If each phone had used a unique name — or if Apple had made excess of five different phones by this point– I’d suspect that folk would have a less clear idea of what an Apple smartphone is.

i don’t believe Apple will sustain its current numbering scheme much longer — it starts to get a touch ridiculous at iPhone 6 or 7 — but I doubt it’s going to dispose of ‘iPhone” until it’s truly able to start over with something new.

But iPhone is a secure name. Kindle is a brilliant one — like Macintosh or ThinkPad. It isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, nevertheless it also poses some challenges. If Amazon only made one device, it will keep calling each new edition “the Kindle” forever and be fine. But now it’s creating a bunch. Its current lineup includes the Kindle, the Kindle Touch, the Kindle Keyboard, the Kindle DX and the Kindle Fire (not counting 3G variations). A few of those are on their way out and others will definitely be added, each running the chance of diminishing the Kindle brand (and, consequently, Amazon’s).

The Kindle Fire, i believe, is an example of doing it right. It sounds good, or not less than adequate, and other people can basically grasp what it truly is and what it’s not. They know that it is a Kindle — and hence, for reading books — however the name is satisfactorily different from something like Kindle Touch in order not be confused for one more e-reader. i believe that still makes it a “good” name in its own right. As opposed to Apple’s various iPods, “Fire” doesn’t simply describe a feature or characteristic as iPod nano, iPod shuffle and iPod touch do. It’s a Kindle that does more than books, which is something that’s easy for Amazon to market, and a significant advantage over other Android tablets (a term, incidentally, you won’t see Amazon using very much).

If full-featured tablets wind up being Amazon’s focus, a future Kindle Fire may well eventually become “the Kindle,” and its basic e-readers could take on a suffix instead. Or, if the Kindle Fire becomes a huge success, Amazon could simply call a future tablet “the Fire,” and its e-book reader could remain “the Kindle.” It has options that are built on a solid foundation.

There might be a Kindle Fire 2, a Kindle Fire DX or a Kindle Flame before that happens, but the further Amazon dilutes the Kindle name without creating something new, the closer it comes to confusing consumers and hurting its brand. It’s far from a hard and fast rule, but if you’re starting to run out of decent product names to use at any given time, you might just have too many products.

Compare that to something like the Motorola Xoom. “Xoom” isn’t a particularly good name to start with, and you can’t really call the product a success, but Motorola’s now not only back with a Xoom 2, but a Xoom 2 Media Edition and a Xoom Family Edition (but not a Xoom 2 Family Edition). You still have to explain what a Xoom is to most people, and you now also have to explain what the difference is between the three models. In contrast, Motorola and Verizon had a winner with Droid, but even it has seen things like the HTC Droid Incredible muddy the waters, and many of Motorola’s non-Droid phones have names that are largely interchangeable with each other and with other companies’ phones. And if Droid is now wholly a Verizon name, what does it mean to be a Droid phone?

Again, this is far from scientific, but my suspicion is that the companies who are regularly in the good and safe categories tend to have a better handle on their products in general than those that find themselves in the meaningless and bad categories more often than not. There are few companies that thrive on nothing but good product names, but I think the smart ones are able to realize when they’re pushing things — so they settle into the safe category, and occasionally put out a new product with an excellent, or even great name to restart the cycle.

…a good product naming strategy isn’t all that far removed from a good product strategy.

Yes, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. Some companies like Leica or BMW have iconic names in their own right, and their “meaningless” names have been around long enough to develop their own legacy (or at least some semblance of a standard formula). Those exceptions also tend to make great products. Nokia was once in this camp as well, but it eventually faltered and has now decided to effectively start over with Windows Phone — and Lumia is a pretty good start . There are also, of course, plenty of lousy products with good names. The name itself is only part of the equation.

On the whole, however, a good product naming strategy isn’t all that far removed from a good product strategy. You ought to know when to take a risk with something new and when to play it safe. You can not just keep throwing things against a wall and hope that one sticks, or keep echoing an analogous chorus of hyperbole that drowns out everything and resonates without one.

Source