It was 2003. Tech startup, three brilliant founders, revolutionary product.
Company name: “SoluTech Integrated Systems Ltd.”
I asked: “Why that name?”
Answer: “Because it’s descriptive. People understand what we do.”
Ten years later: company bankrupt.
Competitor with inferior product but memorable name: $2 billion valuation.
Difference wasn’t ONLY the name.
But name was critical early signal: one company understood brand equity management from day one.
The other treated naming as administrative task—and that mindset pervaded everything else.
THE MYTH OF THE “DESCRIPTIVE” NAME
The temptation to choose a name that “explains what you do” is huge.
Seems safe. Obvious. Pragmatic.
Problem: you’re not unique doing what you do.
And if your name is generic, you’ll NEVER be memorable.
Quick test—remember the names of these companies?
- Hotel chain founded 1919
- Electronic chip manufacturer founded 1968
- Online book retailer founded 1994
You don’t remember, because I invented generic companies.
Now try to forget these names:
- Ritz-Carlton (not “Premium Hotels International”)
- Intel (not “Integrated Electronics Corp.”)
- Amazon (not “Books Online Direct”)
Difference isn’t luck. It’s strategy.
THE THREE DEADLY SINS OF NAMING
SIN 1: TOO DESCRIPTIVE
Real example:
In the 2000s, dozens of fintech startups emerged.
Three real names from that era:
- “Digital Banking Solutions”
- “Online Payment Systems”
- “Nubank”
Two failed.
One is worth $50 billion.
Nubank is worth $50 billion today.
Not because of the name alone.
But because strong name ENABLED strong brand equity from day one:
- Easy to remember = 30-40% lower CAC
- Distinctive = easier PR/word-of-mouth
- Purple + unique name = instant recall
Good name doesn’t guarantee success.
But it’s multiplier for everything else you do right.
Golden rule:
If your name perfectly describes what you do, any competitor can use similar name.
And then you compete eternally for impossible differentiation.
SIN 2: INVENTED NAME WITHOUT MEANING
Counterpoint: too abstract also fails.
Example: I worked with a 2015 startup called “Zyxora.”
I asked: “What does it mean?”
Answer: “Nothing. We just wanted something unique and registrable.”
Problem:
Unique? Yes.
Registrable? Yes.
Memorable? No.
Nobody remembered. Clients called it “Zixora,” “Zyrora,” “that company with Z.”
Three years later: complete rebrand. Cost: $800k.
Invented name works IF:
- You have giant marketing budget (Google, Kodak managed)
- OR name has memorable phonetics (Spotify, Uber, TikTok)
Otherwise, you’re creating extra work to be remembered.
SIN 3: LIMITING NAME
Amazon almost became “Cadabra.”
Jeff Bezos gave up when his lawyer heard “cadaver” on the phone.
Second name considered: “Relentless.com” (copy it to your browser. Still redirects to Amazon today).
Why did Amazon win?
Because it was:
- Memorable (world’s largest river = sells everything)
- Scalable (didn’t limit to “books”)
- Phonetic (works in any language)
Now imagine if it was called “BooksDirect.com.”
Could it have sold electronics? Cloud computing? Streaming?
Limiting name traps you in initial category.
THE IMPOSSIBLE (BUT NECESSARY) FORMULA
Create a name that’s simultaneously:
Unique (different from everything in market)
Registrable (.com domain available, trademark free)
Memorable (customer remembers after hearing once)
Positioned (reinforces what you stand for)
Scalable (doesn’t limit you to one product/geography)
Pronounceable (works in multiple languages)
Is it mission impossible?
Almost.
But brands that achieve it are worth billions more than generic ones.
THREE STRATEGIES THAT WORK
1. POSITIONED METAPHOR
Apple doesn’t sell apples. But name evokes:
- Simplicity (fruit vs tech complexity)
- Organic vs synthetic
- Biting knowledge (subtle biblical reference)
Patagonia doesn’t only operate in Patagonia. But name evokes:
- Wild nature
- Remote/authentic places
- Adventure
Why it works:
Metaphor suggests positioning without limiting operation.
2. INVENTED WORD WITH RECOGNIZABLE ROOT
Spotify = Spot (place) + Ify (make)
“Put music anywhere”
Netflix = Net (internet) + Flix (movies, English slang)
Self-explanatory but unique.
Why it works:
Brain recognizes pieces of word (familiarity) but combination is unique (distinctive).
3. COMMON WORD REDEFINED
Uber = superior (Latin/German)
Taxi isn’t common. It’s superior.
Virgin could have been limiting name (‘virgin’ = inexperienced).
But Richard Branson redefined it:
Not “we’re new” → “we make stale markets virgin again”
Entered music, airlines, trains, mobile, space—always “virginizing” established category.
Lesson: Even potentially weak name can work with strong brand equity narrative.
WHEN DESCRIPTIVE NAME CAN WORK
Weak name isn’t death sentence—but requires:
1. FIRST-MOVER ADVANTAGE
Intel (short for “Integrated Electronics”) is descriptive name.
But worked because:
- Abbreviated to 2 syllables (memorable)
- 50+ years brutal execution
- Sonic branding (“Intel Inside”)
- First-mover (defined category)
Could Intel have done better with different name? Possibly.
But they overcame descriptive name through superior brand equity management.
This is exception, not rule. Most companies can’t afford 50 years overcoming weak name.
2. MASSIVE RESOURCES
IBM, HP, 3M overcame generic/acronym names with decades + billions.
Startups don’t have this luxury.
3. CATEGORY WHERE NAME MATTERS LESS
B2B infrastructure (Oracle, Cisco). Name less critical than enterprise relationships.
Consumer brands. Name is make-or-break.
4. EXCEPTIONAL PRODUCT
If product is 10x better, customers overlook forgettable name, temporarily.
But competitor with 8x product + strong name will eventually win.
THE MATH OF POOR NAMING
Operating with weak name for 10 years:
- 30-40% higher CAC (harder to remember)
- 50% lower word-of-mouth (not shareable)
- Lost PR opportunities (journalists forget name)
- Estimated cost: $2-5M in wasted marketing (mid-size company)
Rebranding in Year 2:
- One-time cost: $300k-800k
- 3-6 months transition
- Some customer confusion
- But saves $2-5M over next 8 years
Lesson: Early rebrand is almost always cheaper than decade of weak name.
WHAT TO DO IF YOUR NAME IS GENERIC
OPTION A: REBRAND (expensive, risky, but sometimes necessary)
Success examples:
- The Hershey Company (was “Hershey Chocolate Company” – limiting)
- PayPal (was “Confinity” – unmemorable)
- Nintendo (was “Marufuku Company” – no meaning outside Japan)
OPTION B: TURN GENERIC INTO ICONIC VIA BRUTAL EXECUTION
Example: The North Face
Name is descriptive, but metaphorically strong.
“North face” in mountaineering = most difficult, technical route.
Name worked because:
- Strong metaphor (not just “Mountain Gear Co.”)
- Product excellence
- Sponsored real expeditions (credibility)
- 50 years consistent brand equity management
Cost billions? Yes.
But investment was in product + credibility, not just ‘marketing.’
Generic name CAN work, but requires decades of flawless execution most don’t have.
THE BRUTAL TRUTH
You’ll spend 10 years repeating your company name.
Every meeting. Every email. Every campaign. Every hire.
If name is “SoluTech Integrated Systems,” you’re carrying an anvil.
If name is memorable, unique, and positioned, it works for you.
Name isn’t aesthetic detail.
It’s the first intangible asset you create.
And like every intangible asset:
Can be worth zero (if it’s anything).
Or billions (if it’s unmistakable).
CONCLUSION: NAME IS POSITIONING’S FIRST TOUCHPOINT
When Steve Jobs chose “Apple” for a computer company, everyone said it was crazy.
“But it means nothing! No relation to technology!”
Exactly.
But here’s what’s often forgotten:
Apple almost died in the 1990s with the same name.
Name didn’t save company. Execution did:
- Steve Jobs returning
- iMac (design revolution)
- iPod (category creation)
- iPhone (market dominance)
Strong name gave Apple ADVANTAGE:
Made comeback easier (people remembered brand).
Imagine trying same comeback as “Personal Computing Solutions Inc.”
Lesson: Good name is necessary but not sufficient.
You still need execution. But execution is EASIER with strong name.
And today Apple is worth $3 trillion.
Does your name describe what you DO?
Or what you WANT TO BE?
Because who chooses any name accepts being anything.
José Roberto Martins
More on naming: BrandingLeaks (2026)
