[Cache – #49]
Names have jobs to do. Vote on which ones do them best and worst.
One of the most important decisions you can make when naming a new brand, be it an organization, product, service, business line or program, is how it will relate to others in your portfolio. It is the question of brand naming architecture, defined as the hierarchical relationship between different brands’ positions, names and visual identities.
An effective architecture makes it easy for customers to buy from you – by making it easy for them to understand the value proposition of each offering, and the differences among them. Consider the analogy of your local grocery store. Most have very effective architectures: the aisles are marked to indicate the products within them, and the products are organized on the shelf in a logical fashion and affixed with names that clearly convey what’s in each package.
Great names do the job (among the many jobs they must do) of contributing logically to the arrangement of brands now in your portfolio, or setting the stage for those that are just a twinkle in your eye.
Bell Canada, for example, has recently renamed their internet service Fibe. Bell’s internet operates over phone lines, which are widely perceived as slower than the cable network used by chief rival Rogers. But Fibe, in that it derives from “fibre optic”, has a very speedy association. So at the job of communicating the brand’s essence, it succeeds well.
Then, by using the architecture technique of versioning, Bell offers a choice among Fibe 6, Fibe 12, Fibe 16 and Fibe 25 – the number on each package indicating its megabit-per-second download speed. Making it easy for consumers to choose which offering suits them best. And setting the stage for Bell to add ever-faster levels of service, as, over time, their speed capabilities inevitably increase.
What do you think of Fibe as a name, either as a meaningful and differentiating moniker, or of its use of brand naming architecture?
And why? Vote and leave a comment to tell us.