Abstract

Abstract

The author begins by pointing out that (1) the name of a product is at the core of its personality, yet (2) it is infrequently researched. The brand not only identifies the product or service, and allows the buyer to specify it, but it communicates messages to the buyer and also functions as a piece of legal property.Four basic rules are proposed. First, any good brand will distinguish the product from those of competitors. Second, it will support the product's positioning. Third, it will be acceptable (easy to pronounce, free of unwanted inferences, etc.) Fourth, it will be available for trademark registration.The key question, of course, is how does one determine whether any proposed brand name abides by those rules? Experienced marketing judgment helps, as does a trademark attorney. But somewhere in the process there should be confirmation that the intended buyer agrees. For this step, the author suggests one or more of the following types of research.First, there is the simple quantitative test. This test usually uses a sample of 50 to 100 consumers who view and rate the concept statement. One‐on‐one interviewing simply asks for reactions and preferences.Second is the simple qualitative test. This is a focus group approach (or comparable numbers of in‐depth inteviews) where interviewing begins with the product concept and follows with the positioning statement, the “brand character” sought and several proposed brand names.Unfortunately, both of these methods require rather quick response, without the full market setting that will eventually accompany the product when prospects are asked to buy it. Therefore they cannot deal well with more abstract names (e.g., KODAK).The third approach suggested is non‐metric mapping, whereby currently available products (including one or more of the proposed brands, not identified as new) are positioned by various attributes. The method relies on the projective abilities of consumers, and again would add little knowledge on names that are not at least somewhat descriptive of the product and its positioning.Fourth, the author suggests the marketing mix test. This is a larger‐scale quantitative test and involves the actual product, its price and its advertising. On consumer packaged goods the method is to use simulated test markets, but other industries can replicate the method less formally and without the actual volume and market‐share forecasts provided by the simulated test‐market suppliers. This method is the best one for selecting brand names.But, whatever the method, one should be aware that the ultimate purchaser sees the brand name in the context of a market. There are a product, a package, competition, displays and in‐home use. The total environment goes a long way to giving brand names their ability to communicate. The author asks, for example, “Who would have believed that a fragrance called Charlie would take the market by storm?” A simple brand name test presumably could not have made such an assessment.Therefore, brand testing should incorporate as much of the total purchasing environment as feasible. The materials are called “stimulus” materials, and may be simple mock‐up packages or proposition boards and animatics.