Brand Naming

Context

Use this when a company or product needs a name that is strategically grounded — not just creative. Naming is the most visible brand decision and the hardest to reverse. A good name does three things: it signals the right category, it creates an emotional hook, and it is legally and digitally ownable. This skill ensures naming is treated as a strategic exercise tied to positioning, not a brainstorming free-for-all.

Procedure

1. Define the naming brief. Extract from the positioning strategy: what the brand does, for whom, what makes it different, and the emotional territory it should own. Specify: tone (playful, serious, technical, warm), length preference, language requirements, and must-avoid directions.

2. Map the competitive namespace. List 10-15 competitor and adjacent brand names. Identify naming patterns in the space (e.g., "-ify" SaaS names, Latin-root consulting names, nature-based wellness names). Decide whether to follow or break the pattern.

3. Generate candidates across 5 naming styles:

   • Descriptive: Says what it does (e.g., Booking.com, General Electric)
   • Evocative: Suggests a feeling or outcome (e.g., Slack, Notion, Lumio)
   • Abstract/Invented: New word, ownable but needs education (e.g., Kodak, Spotify)
   • Compound/Blend: Two words merged (e.g., Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube)
   • Metaphor/Symbol: Borrowed meaning from another domain (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Apex) Generate 3-4 candidates per style. Total: 15-20 names.

4. First filter — strategic fit. Score each name 1-5 on: positioning alignment, memorability, pronounceability, distinctiveness, and emotional tone. Cut to top 8-10.

5. Second filter — viability. For the top 8-10:

   • Check .com domain availability (and country TLDs if relevant)
   • Check social media handle availability (@name on X, Instagram, LinkedIn)
   • Run a basic trademark search (USPTO, EUIPO, Benelux trademark register as applicable)
   • Check for negative meanings in target languages Cut to 3-5 finalists.

6. Build the shortlist presentation. For each finalist:

   • Name and pronunciation guide
   • Naming style (descriptive/evocative/abstract/compound/metaphor)
   • Strategic rationale: why this name works for the positioning
   • Domain and social status
   • Trademark risk level (clear / caution / conflict)
   • Brand story seed: a one-sentence origin narrative
   • Potential tagline pairing

7. Recommend and decide. Present the shortlist with a clear recommendation and rationale. The recommended name should score highest across strategic fit AND viability.

Output Format

# Brand Naming: [Project Name]

## Naming Brief
- **What it does:** [core function/value]
- **For whom:** [target audience]
- **Positioning territory:** [the space the brand owns]
- **Tone:** [playful / serious / warm / technical / bold]
- **Constraints:** [length, language, domain requirements]
- **Must avoid:** [competitor similarities, negative associations]

## Competitive Namespace
| Competitor/Adjacent | Name Style | Pattern |
|-------------------|-----------|---------|
| [name] | [style] | [pattern noted] |

## Candidate Names (15-20)
### Descriptive
| Name | Positioning Fit (1-5) | Memorability (1-5) | Notes |
|------|----------------------|--------------------:|-------|
| [name] | [N] | [N] | [note] |

### Evocative
| Name | Positioning Fit (1-5) | Memorability (1-5) | Notes |
|------|----------------------|--------------------:|-------|

### Abstract/Invented
| Name | Positioning Fit (1-5) | Memorability (1-5) | Notes |
|------|----------------------|--------------------:|-------|

### Compound/Blend
| Name | Positioning Fit (1-5) | Memorability (1-5) | Notes |
|------|----------------------|--------------------:|-------|

### Metaphor/Symbol
| Name | Positioning Fit (1-5) | Memorability (1-5) | Notes |
|------|----------------------|--------------------:|-------|

## Shortlist (3-5 Finalists)

### 1. [Name] ⭐ Recommended
- **Style:** [naming style]
- **Rationale:** [why this works for the positioning]
- **Domain:** [available/taken — alternatives]
- **Social handles:** [@name availability]
- **Trademark risk:** [clear / caution / conflict]
- **Brand story seed:** [one-sentence narrative]
- **Tagline pairing:** [suggested tagline]

### 2. [Name]
...

### 3. [Name]
...

## Recommendation
[Clear recommendation with strategic rationale for the top pick]

QA Rubric (scored)

• Strategic grounding (0-5): every name traces back to the positioning brief, not random brainstorming.
• Style diversity (0-5): candidates span at least 4 of 5 naming styles.
• Viability rigor (0-5): domain, social, and trademark checks completed for all finalists.
• Decision clarity (0-5): shortlist has a clear recommendation with defensible rationale.

Examples (good/bad)

• Good: "Naming brief anchored to positioning: 'AI visibility agency that makes businesses findable by both humans and AI agents.' Competitive namespace mapped 12 competitors. Generated 18 candidates across 5 styles. Shortlisted 4 finalists with domain checks: Lumio (.com available, evocative — 'light/illuminate'), Beacon (metaphor — 'guiding signal', .com taken but beacon.ai available), Clearpath (compound — 'clear path to visibility', .com taken), Signifi (invented — 'signal + amplify', .com available). Recommended Lumio: strongest positioning fit, .com available, no trademark conflicts in EU/US, works across NL/EN/DE/FR."
• Bad: "Here are 50 name ideas: Growthify, Marketron, BrandBoost, SEOMax..." (no naming brief, no strategic filter, no viability check, quantity over quality, names are generic SaaS clichés)

Variants

• Product naming variant: naming a product within an existing brand architecture (e.g., Lumio under [Company Name]).
• Rename variant: replacing an existing brand name — includes migration considerations and existing equity assessment.
• Multi-market variant: name must work across multiple languages and cultures — heavier cross-language checks.
• Speed variant: 2-hour naming sprint with pre-researched competitive namespace — 10 candidates, 2 finalists.