Method · Naming

How we name brands

The Magnetic Field Method. What the research says about names, what the best naming firms agree on, and the seven steps we run before a founder commits.

Ben Acott, Founder, Magnetic

Where it comes from

Validate. Test. Then commit.

I've been building brands, products and names for over twenty years. The rule has never changed. We test before we commit.

A name is the first thing anyone learns about a company. It's also the hardest thing to change later. So we went back to the source. We studied how the world's leading naming firms work, including Lexicon, the team behind Pentium, BlackBerry, Swiffer and Sonos. We read decades of research on how people hear, remember and trust names. We looked at the names that won and the names that had to be changed.

The Field Method is what we kept.

The research

What the science says

A lot of naming research comes from small lab studies with made-up products. Not all of it holds up. We lean on findings that have been repeated, and treat the rest as signals.

Exposure

Great names are usually disliked at first

Intel's executive team split over Pentium. Andy Grove read the split as energy for the name. RIM's executives thought Lexicon was crazy to suggest a fruit name for an email device.

A review of 208 experiments found people like things more the more they see them. Bornstein, 1989 Liking for new brand names rose with every exposure over five weeks. Kohli, Harich and Leuthesser, 2005

What we doWe never judge a name on one look. We never ask "do you like it?"

Memory

Real words beat invented ones

69% vs 38%

Recall of real-word brand names against invented words, in one widely cited study. Lerman and Garbarino, 2002 BlackBerry, Slack and Impossible were ordinary words first.

What we doWe start from words people already know, used somewhere they don't expect.

Sound

Sound carries meaning before the word does

72%

Of 917 people across 25 languages matched "bouba" to a round shape and "kiki" to a spiky one. Ćwiek et al., 2021 Vowel sounds change whether a product feels small or rich. Klink, 2000; Lowrey and Shrum, 2007 Both findings held up when repeated independently. Motoki and Iseki, 2022

What we doWe pick sounds on purpose. Soft sounds read warm. Hard sounds read strong.

Health

Hard consonants raise expected side effects

Medicine names with b, d, g and z made people expect stronger effects and more side effects. Park, Motoki, Pathak and Spence, 2021

What we doIn health and care, we balance warmth with enough strength to feel credible.

Fluency

Hard to say reads as risky

People rated hard-to-pronounce food additives as more harmful, and hard-to-pronounce rides as more likely to make them sick. Song and Schwarz, 2009 Easy-to-say names are liked more. Laham, Koval and Alter, 2012

What we doEvery finalist is tested on how people say it and spell it after one listen.

Context

The same name wins or loses on context

Preference for a name flipped depending on the product described next to it. Lowrey and Shrum, 2007 Nobody meets a name on a list.

What we doWe show every name in real context, with the same description and design.

Trust

Warmth needs competence beside it

People judge companies on warmth and competence. Brands seen as warm but not competent lose trust when it counts. Aaker, Vohs and Mogilner, 2010

What we doThe name can carry warmth. The people, standards and product carry the credibility.

Growth

Descriptive names get outgrown

Descriptive names help recall at launch and make it harder to stretch later. Keller, Heckler and Houston, 1998 AirBed & Breakfast became Airbnb.

What we doWe test every name against where the company is going.

The practice

What the best firms agree on

  • Agree the brief firstIgor writes a job description for the name. Rob Meyerson reuses the approved brief to judge the finalists.
  • Go wide before narrowLexicon generates 2,000 to 3,000 ideas per project. Around 90% fall to legal, language and strategy checks.
  • Attack from different anglesLexicon runs separate teams, including one that thinks it's naming a competitor. Windsurf came from one of those teams.
  • Show names the same wayIn context, one at a time. Never as a list in an email.
  • Expect discomfortDavid Placek says a comfortable room probably hasn't found the name yet.
  • Kill consensusGroup votes and polling friends pick the safest name. Rarely the best one.

The method

The Magnetic Field Method

Seven steps. The founder makes two decisions. We do everything in between.

  1. A job description for the name

    Before anyone writes a name, we agree what it has to do. What it makes people feel in the first second. Who it's for, in their words. How it sounds. What the company sells in five years. What's off limits.

    The founder signs it off. Every name after that is judged against the job, not against taste.

  2. Map the category

    We map every name and idea the category keeps recycling. We find where it's crowded and where there's open space.

  3. Generate wide

    Hundreds of names across several territories. Different teams take different angles, including one that doesn't know who the client is. Nobody judges until the end.

  4. Screen hard

    Trademark knockout searches. Domains and handles. Meanings checked with native speakers. One question for every name: is the customer the hero, or the brand?

    Full trademark clearance always sits with the founder's counsel.

  5. Show it in context

    Every finalist in a real sentence, on a real screen, with the same description and the same level of design.

  6. Test with the people who'll say it

    We measure what people think the company does, who it's for, how they say it and what they remember the next day. Then we put lines in market and watch what people commit to.

  7. Two options, each with a backup

    We bring two names. Each has a reserve, because legal kills favourites. Each comes with why we recommend it, where it's weaker and what's still uncertain. The founder picks.

Naming something?

The right name usually feels a little wrong for the first week. We'll give you enough depth to choose it with conviction.

Talk to Ben

Sources

  1. Aaker, J., Vohs, K. and Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2).
  2. Bornstein, R. (1989). Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2).
  3. Ćwiek, A. et al. (2021). The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377.
  4. Keller, K., Heckler, S. and Houston, M. (1998). The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing, 62(1).
  5. Klink, R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: the use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11(1).
  6. Kohli, C., Harich, K. and Leuthesser, L. (2005). Creating brand identity: a study of evaluation of new brand names. Journal of Business Research, 58(11).
  7. Laham, S., Koval, P. and Alter, A. (2012). The name-pronunciation effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3).
  8. Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E. (2002). Recall and recognition of brand names: a comparison of word and nonword name types. Psychology and Marketing.
  9. Lowrey, T. and Shrum, L. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3).
  10. Motoki, K. and Iseki, S. (2022). Replication of sensory marketing findings. Frontiers in Communication.
  11. Park, J., Motoki, K., Pathak, A. and Spence, C. (2021). A sound brand name: the role of voiced consonants in pharmaceutical branding. Food Quality and Preference, 90.
  12. Song, H. and Schwarz, N. (2009). If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Psychological Science, 20(2).
  13. Practitioners: Lexicon Branding (David Placek, Lenny's Podcast; Quartz), Igor Naming Guide (2022), Catchword Naming Guide, Rob Meyerson (How Brands Are Built).