It’s become a household name: Groupon … the fusion of ‘group’ + ‘coupon’ makes sense on all fronts from a naming perspective.

The Groupon magic goes like this: Groupon negotiates huge discounts—usually 50-90% off—with popular businesses. They send the deals to thousands of subscribers in their free daily email, and then send the businesses a ton of new customers.

While Groupon was first to market with their daily deal platform, the success of the business model has spawned hundreds of me-too sites and companies. The trouble is, Groupon has become so popular it’s now genericized for these savings sites, which are currently flooding my inbox.

Check out these similar offerings and their naming styles:

Living Social: A more modern, hip name but lacks the bar call when used in conversation. “I bought the yoga Groupon” just rolls better when said aloud.

Mamasource (by Mamapedia): A great site that does good too – they give back a percentage of your purchase to a school of your choice, and the deals last longer than a day. Perfect for those indecisive shoppers who just need a bit more time to make up their mind. This is more than a daily deal site, as they offer a lot of resources for moms. The name is cute, and clearly geared towards moms.

Plum District: Arbitrary name, but a fun daily deal site designed specifically towards mom. Plus, they reward you with Plum Dollars when you refer other people to the site (as opposed to other sites who reward you only when a referral makes a purchase).

Eversave: Cute, simple, descriptive name, and their logo is cute too.

Woot: Short moniker; the most emotional daily deal name. Uniquely captures the end benefit of scoring a great deal. The catchy name works well in vernacular too: “I just scored a Woot.” Woot indeed.

What are we missing? What are your favorite daily deal sites? Does the name of the site itself make you want to sign up, or is popularity driven solely by the caliber of deals offered?

The idea: creative. The purpose: admirable. The name: underwhelming.

Pegasus Global Holdings has secured 20 square miles in New Mexico to serve as a mock town where they can study the environmental and global effects of specific technologies. “Innovators … (can) to test renewable energy innovations in real world conditions, such as how does a solar panel work on a shadier lot?”

With a plot of land ripe for experiments, a ‘ghost town’ heritage, a team targeting innovators and specialists in their respective industries, and a $200 million dollar budget, “The Center” is the name they chose? If executed correctly, Pegasus Holdings has a real opportunity to create some press and engagement around this initiative. With a name like “The Center”, they’ve missed the mark.

How about playing up the environmental aspect in the name? Or if that is too trite, what about the dichotomy of ghost town imagery with technological innovation? Have any ideas? Post them in the comments.

We’ve all been through it before. We come across a personal issue, over-analyze the situation, and then respond with an unnecessary reaction (whoops…). Well, the same thing can happen to brands. We call it, over-branding. And it happens to the best of us…

Over-branding

Over-branding often occurs when a company recognizes an issue, tries to resolve the issue, but reacts excessively.  To Netflix, this sounds all too familiar. Due to a rapid decline in stock prices, Netflix announced it was going to split its services into two brands:  Netflix and Qwikster. Good move? Ask Netflix. After assessing the situation a bit more (and hearing the public’s reaction), the company “qwikly” learned that two brands aren’t always better than one. Shortly after the split was announced, Netflix decided to terminate Qwikster before its launch. Better late than never.

Sometimes over-branding might occur for reasons that aren’t as clear. We are all familiar with Comcast’s rebranding as XFINITY. Looking back, it’s difficult to determine a clear motive for the rebrand. As one of the most successful media tech companies in the U.S., Comcast was (and is) a popular household name. Over its long history Comcast developed a strong and positive public image, so why would a company want to move away from a name that held an immeasurable amount of equity? And it is evident the rebranding effort has confused a number of customers. One of the FAQs on XFINITY’s website asks, “What makes XFINITY different from the service I currently receive from Comcast?” Good question.

Moral

Everyone can agree that branding is crucial for the success of a business. But it’s even more crucial to make sure it is done correctly. Here are a couple of things to consider when developing your brand:

• Keep it simple. A common obstacle with branding is over-complication (see examples above). As a brand advocate, it’s easy to get caught up in the intricacies of your brand – many companies want every detail to be showcased. Be sure to prioritize when addressing your audience. It’s important to keep things consistent, clear and concise.
• Seek out a pair of fresh eyes. Strong brands have passionate employees who often times see things through a company lens.  It is always important to get a third-party’s opinion – someone unbiased, trustworthy and knowledgeable.
• Think it through. Over-branding is often a result of rushed decisions. A new brand name, design and/or strategy is something that will touch every piece of your business. Take time to make sure your decisions make sense from every angle.

Typically our clients use an intentionally obscure project name to avoid internal rallying around the code name. Google seemed to embrace the methodology of marketing the code name, and has built an entire strategy out of the process. Enter Ice Cream Sandwich.

While I’m all for food references and love the imagery evoked by this new OS, the overall code naming strategy strikes me as an unsustainable practice.

Pros

• It’s Google
• The order/lineage is easy to understand … version C came before version D, etc.
• Desserts are fun and have an approachable personality
• It’s Google

Cons

• Code names should be code names. If a company puts more marketing efforts into their code name, do they build any equity into the actual product name?
• What is the strategy if there isn’t a recognizable dessert name that starts with the next letter in line for an upcoming version?
• As a namer, I wanted to ask about the story behind Ice Cream Sandwich; uncovering that it’s simply the next in line from an initial letter standpoint wasn’t enough for me. Cupcake is cute; short and sweet. Honeycomb referenced the structure behind the technology (and while I don’t classify it as a dessert, I get that it’s a sweet). Ice Cream Sandwich (intentionally missing the grammatically correct article preceding it) is designed to serve as ‘one OS everywhere’ but the name isn’t reflective of that messaging.

Personally, I would have preferred ‘Icing’ as the next in line. It’s one word, is typically referred to as the ‘best part of the cake’, and evokes a premium quality. Can’t wait to see what they do with J.