Branding vs. Naming Part III.

In my previous post, I discussed Marty Neumeier's advice on "branding" a business from his book "The Brand Gap." The author also sets out seven criteria for a good name:

1. Distinctiveness. Does it stand out from the crowd, especially from other names in its class? Does it separate well from ordinary text and speech? The best brand names have the "presence" of a proper noun.

2. Brevity. Is it short tenough to be easily recalled and used? Will it resist being reduced to a nickname? Long multi-word names will be quickly shortened to non-communicating initials.

3. Appropriateness. Is there a reasonable fit with the business purpose of the entity? If it would work just as well -- or better -- for another entity, keep looking.

4. Easy Spelling and Pronunciation. Will most people be able to spell the name after hearing it spoken? Will they be able to pronounce it after seeing it written? A name shouldn't turn into a spelling test or make people feel ignorant.

5. Likability. Will people enjoy using it? Names that are intellectually stimulating, or provide a good "mouth feel," have a headstart overt those that don't.

6. Extendability. Does it have "legs"? Does it suggest a visual interpretatiuon or lend itself to a number of creative executioins? Great names provide endless opportunities for brandplay.

7. Protectability. Can it be trademarked? Is it available for web use? While many names can be trademarked, some names are more defensible than others, making them safer and more valuable in the long run.

As I discussed in this previous post I have been thinking seriously about renaming my new firm. My present name: Homann Law and Mediation fails criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 set forth above. Wow, what a stupid name that was.

What are your favorite law firm names? Mine is Competition Law Group.