My Photo

TRACK MY BLOG





  • Subscribe myblog by email






Copyrights


  • the mp3 and audio files you will listen on my blog are self produced.

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 03/2005

« Put AGENDA on your agenda | Main | What is SKYPE waiting to offer skins? »

15 March 2006

WEB2.0 Brands: How (not) to choose a name

You plan to create a new start up? Quickly will raise the question of the NAME. How will you call you service/company? You have 2 choices.

  • Follow the trend
  • Disrupt the trend

Regardings trends Eric points that most new web services (old school trend was OO like YAHOO/KELKOO/GOOGLE/WANADOO) for an “Z” “O” or “R” name or como of them. Jamendo/Rollyo/Zlio/Zoto/…..(Bozo by the way is not taken) or even Flickr/Talkr/Zooomr

Joining Eric, Josh Kopelman mentions that the success of Google lead the “…..LE” trend like Froogle/Kaboodle/Dabble… (and as he smartly mentions Bubble finishes also by “LE”)

Anyway do not forget the basisc of marketing.

  • You want your brand to sound good (i am sorry but i hate most of those names out there even if services are great)
  • You want people to remember your brand,
  • You want your brand to tell people something about your service,
  • You want your brand to stand out of the crowd
  • and most importantly you want your brand to LAST.

I am more in favour of disrupting the trends. When i set my company i could have jumped in the OO easy trend. But i prefered a plain simple name (some of our competitors went for OO). Flickr and Yahoo and Google brought something disruptive about their name and clearly set a trend. And i would go personnally for a name that stands out and means something.

For example: if i had to launch FlickR today i would certainly not call it Flickr or Phozo or whatever. I would try to build a new term or even expression like YouTube (i like this name) did.

Interestingly nobody followed the Skype Hype. Where are the names in ..YPE or SK…?

But does it really matter? Indeed a name without appropriate marketing is like a good steak without the proper cooking. Building a brand and note choosing one is the right challenge, this is too much forgotten by new web start ups that concentrate energy in R&D and UI but not in creating a true strategy to reach critical size.

Building a brand meaning generating proper marketing activity. Skype for me is a great case study. Some Web2.0 Brands i like

  • PANDORA
  • FLICKR
  • FEEDBURNER
  • TECHNORATI
  • YOUTUBE
  • DELICIOUS
  • SKYPE
  • NEWSVINE
  • WRITELY

UPDATE: Get that StarWar/Web2.0 quiz. Youll understand better what i mean…

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452709769e200d834b0d36b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WEB2.0 Brands: How (not) to choose a name:

Comments

Mmmh, nice to be found in this list of famous names ...

Jamendo was invented based on the contraction of Jam and crenscendo ...


I completely agree and want to add an iportant point mentioned in Guy Kawasaki blog:
Make your name a verb so that people will use it as a functionality like "Skype me" or "Google them".
the full article is here:
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/02/the_name_game.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

ABOUT YOUR HOST

TRANSLATE & SEARCH

MyBlog Roll


MyPICS


  • flickr

Stats



  • web tracker


  • Clicky Web Analytics