Does the ‘Story behind’ a name really matter? (Or, to whom?)

By Drew Letendre

© Copyright Drew Letendre, 2023

It seems to be a commonplace in branding circles to tout the importance of a name’s ‘narrative potential’-- the value of having a ‘back story’ that unveils the underlying link or binding logic between a name and the business, product, or service it identifies. Needless to say, this is especially so when that relationship is not obvious or easily inferred, which is often the case. That this is an issue is

driven by the fact that companies have to reach for increasingly esoteric, improvisational, ‘synthetic,’ or even freakish names in order to secure legal ownership and create distinction. In the absence of the obvious and familiar (meaning), there seems to be a need to ‘justify’ certain names by reference

to a story that interprets an otherwise mysterious relationship to what they identify.

Even though this point about the value of narrative grounding seems so obvious as to obviate the need to address it, let alone challenge it, it still seems reasonable to ask: for whom and under what conditions are these narratives really relevant or useful?

Let’s begin with this basic assumption: a tradename or brand name should probably not come across as arbitrary, stipulative, or irrelevant to its referent. Fair enough. Perceived randomness can be construed as--among other vices--a lack of intention or a weak accommodation to an unforgiving trademark landscape in which ‘all the good names are taken.’ On the flip side, it can also be an act of deliberate ‘provocation,’ the creation of a quite intentional dissonance that ripples against the homogenous backdrop of predictable monikers--a design to win the attention game. Great names

are sometimes born this way.

In most of the naming projects I’ve worked on, such narratives are sold in as the chief virtue of a ‘good’ name (after, of course, its trademark viability). I have so sold it. And I don’t regret it. My point is not to debunk the utility of such narratives, but rather, to put their value in proper context and identify the stakeholders for whom it really matters--and those for whom it really does not. It is my observation that narrative potential sometimes ‘slips its leash’ and slides from governing our work with clients (its primary application in my view) to one we--intentionally or unintentionally--encourage our clients to adopt with theirs. The latter is, I think, a bit of a bridge too far: it is a baton that Branding does not need to pass to Marketing or Sales.

But again, the chasm between some names and what they name almost begs for such bridges. To ground this observation, consider some actual names and the queries they prompt: Why name an insurance business ‘Lemonade,’ after a soft drink? What does ‘Accenture’ (or ‘Otezla’ or ‘Viagra’) mean? What was the thinking behind ‘Caterpillar’ (a noun for a bug) as the name for a heavy equipment manufacturer? Why adopt the name of a river (‘Amazon’) for a parcel delivery business? Parenthetically, names like these explain in part the existence and popularity of books like Even Morris’ ‘From ALTOIDS to Zima, The Surprising Stories Behind Famous Brand Names’ and Alex Frankel’s ‘Word Craft.’ They also explain the esteem accorded--or the necessity ascribed--to ‘the story behind the name’ as a fixture of the brand toolkit. 2

But I think we can also ask, who is the audience or the stakeholder? Who really asks such questions about the provenance, intention, or meaning behind (at least certain) names and really cares about the answers? Why are those answers relevant, useful, or valuable to them? Depending on the answer to the first two questions, the answers to the third are: (i) mere curiosity; (ii) as a limited sell- in tactic; but (iii) not/never as a catalyst to a purchase or business decision. I’ll assume that (i) deserves no further comment and treat (iii) as largely taken for granted.

The answer to the audience or ‘stakeholder’ question is: (1) branding/naming firms (‘the naming guild’); (2) their clients; (3) their clients’ clients; and (4) curious members of the broad business community (especially the creative services subset). In my view, narrative potential is only or mostly relevant in the relationship between Groups 1 and 2. I think it is not relevant to Group 3, except perhaps in connection with launches, and only as a matter of passing interest to Group 4 (and the ‘interested public’).

The power of such back stories is really a matter between the branding professionals who ‘do naming’ and their clients. That is where the value and utility of such narratives come into play. They’re a tool we use to advance the name candidates we recommend and would have our clients adopt. That said, they can also supply Marketing, Sales, and Communications Professionals, even CEOs, with an easily held and recalled script that can be deployed, but in select circumstances: launch announcements (internal, then external), press releases, the occasional elevator pitch (which seem to take place more often at bars or cruising altitude, than between the lobby and 14 th floor). After these inaugural use cases are concluded, the value of the naming narrative is fast-fading or spent. Our clients think they need a ‘rationale.’ They want to feel ‘armed’ with a reason that justifies the names they go to market with, even if their customers and clients could care less.

Naming narratives give our clients ‘reasons to believe’ in the names we recommend. They are arguments, loosely speaking, in favor of the particular candidates we want them to adopt. They do not need to be compelling to our client’s clients. And that is a point worth underlining with our clients: the

narrative that compelled them to adopt NewCo as the go-to-market name for

their business (product or service) is not necessarily an important conversation between them and theirs. Naming narratives are not marketing or sales tools,

even where they sate a customer’s (frankly passing) curiosity about a name.

Not necessary, but nice to have. The ‘rationale’ binding the name to the product (service, business) and making it appealing as a go-to-market moniker to our

client, will not function as a purchase incentive for their customer, nor need it

do so. The momentum of the rationale (name narrative) doesn’t transfer all the

way through, ‘B2B2C,’ so to speak.

Indeed, if we concede that names per se do not sell (but only identify), we can add pretty confidently that the supporting name narrative does little or nothing to overcome a name’s inertness or a--or increase its (supposed?) causal valence with respect to triggering business decisions (purchase). A company interested in purchasing the services of the former Anderson Consulting is not going to be more interested to purchase them under (i.e., because of) the ‘Accenture’ name. But more to our point, they are also no more likely to do so when the provenance of that name is revealed to them--namely, that it is shorthand for the phrasal theme, ‘accent on the future.’ Fascinating perhaps, as a peak behind the curtains of creativity, but not enough to open wallets or conclude contracts.

All of this may be too obvious to state, but perhaps not. There is always the temptation to drink our own Cool aide and then offer sips to clients. As the old expression has it, we ‘make a name for 3 ourselves,’ which is to say that the names do not ‘make’ us or--by extension-- ‘make’ our products or our businesses. Nor do the stories behind the names make them--even for those of us who make our living making names and the stories that explain them.