Google (GOOG, GOOGL) borrowed the simple dictionary word, “ALPHABET” to create a powerful corporate name identity which could have easily been ‘COOL’, ‘POOL’ or a “FOOL.' Any such identity would have gotten the same global buzz and frenzy of excitement. Thankfully, they wisely aborted other possibilities like ‘HEAVEN’, ‘HELL’ or, ‘PURGATORY.’ 

There is nothing wrong with the name ALPHABET but the name game itself?

This name is harmless and in public domain so anybody can use it in any way or shape: Alphabet Catalogue, Alphabet Listings, Alphabet Ding Dongs, etc. 

So, it’s not owned by them, but they always had an ironclad ownership on the global name identity of ‘Google'’ while Alphabet is commonly shared by thousands of other businesses, in various contexts, all over the world. Keeping in mind that the common word Apple is also a very successful brand identity, what level of confusion will occur with Alphabet?

Sometimes organizations, despite the efforts of global powers, still do not own their own name brand identity. Examples of these mega identities include United, National, Dynamic, and Quantum. There are already hundreds of thousands of such names in use for many such brands including: United Airlines, United Bank, and United Bakeries. The key question is why United Airlines is not as distinct and proprietary as a name like Alitalia. These are very serious and politically sensitive boardroom issues, and you have to first count the direct beneficiaries of such naming dysfunctionalities.

It is a good thing that ‘GOOGLE’ teams also decided not to be named by some crazy naming exercise, in a Silicon Valley style like ‘Confusoonostor’ or  ‘Godataumisote.’ Otherwise there would be full-page ads running around the world on how such super creative names convey the meaning from ancient scripts as ‘humble pit’, ‘soft yet very powerful’ or ‘crazy dragon fighter tackling big data’. It’s a fact; such exotic names often appear with a big bang effect but quietly fade away when mega budgets finally convince the confused customers of the naming stupidity.

Here, Google, by selecting a simple name, did very well. Alphabet is only a two star ranking while Google is five stars. How?

2 STAR RANKING:

“The name-identity is seriously damaged; all the efforts are uphill battle. Sales are difficult, recognition is never achieved and limitations are constantly hurting the name identity.”

5 STAR RANKING:

“The brand name holds a winning combination, and is fully capable of traveling around the world without hassle, and consequently owns a bright future. Such Five Star name identities cost very little in promotion as they attract customers based on their shine and personality, therefore promoting themselves with unparalleled personality and dynamic appeal. All super successful brands around the globe have attained Five Star Status.”

Is your brand name identity worthy to be owned exclusively by you or is it already being shared by hundreds of others? Test your Five Star Ranking of your own brands

The Five Star Standard of Naming
A star is awarded for each YES answer:

FIRST STAR:
Is your name easy and simple?

SECOND STAR:
Is your name one-of-a-kind?

THIRD STAR:
Is your name highly related to your business activity?

FOURTH STAR:
Is your name globally protectable?

FIFTH STAR:
Is your name with a matching and identical dotcom?

Source: http://www.fivestarstandard.com/

Alphabet’s Dotcom Fiasco

The domain www.alphabet.com currently belongs to others and not to Google. But we can assume it will eventually be purchased when the ‘merde’ hits the fan and the non-disclosed price tag of $10-$100 million dollars becomes a small side expense.

Currently Google’s entire ‘Alphabet’ empire is housed and parked under “abc.xyz.” That’s a new Top Level Domain Name posing a rather complex and advanced nomenclature game. Unless Google buys ‘Alphabet’ at any cost, the selection of the name can easily be construed as a naming disaster.

Especially since such simple names with matching dotcoms are dime a dozen. Google will simply buy this to save face and its creativity will enjoy double-sided victory.

During the first 24 hours, some thousands of new ‘abc’ and ‘xyz’ based domain names got registered by the public at large.

Why Corporate Images Die a Slow Death
A short history of naming in the recent past…

PWC Consulting did a self-destructive branding number to become “MONDAY,” the dumbest name of the period. During this $60 million makeover and while still in a shock, it gets picked up by IBM (IBM) for merely $3.5 billion. The name “MONDAY” was dropped immediately. Only a year ago, PWC rejected a $12 billion dollar offer by Hewlett Packard (HP).

Deloitte spends $40 million to become Braxton, a name they picked up from the past so that the future can be its judge. KPMG also kicked in $40 million to be re-named BearingPoint. Its challenge now is to unite 16,000 bright consultants under this difficult term on the global scene before it reaches its breaking point. When two complicated ideas like 'bearing' and 'point' are combined they only become initialized as BP, because it’s only the fickle and lazy public at large which decides what to think of a name and what to call it and no amount of money will ever change the public’s mind… Meanwhile, the real BP, which is British Petroleum, is trying very hard to shed the ‘British only’ image by re-inventing itself as BP, as in "Beyond Petroleum," one of the company’s short-lived campaigns. We are not amused. BearingPoint’s symbol is not BP but rather BE, what a pity. Lastly, Anderson, before its demise, also spent $160 million on Accenture, a name suggested by one of its employees. So be nice to your employees, because who knows…one day they may end up naming your corporate destiny.

This fancy and colorful makeover of the world’s top four consulting companies, plus a $300 million budget for four new names, has certainly guaranteed them a chapter in the branding history. While the ad agencies collect their design awards, the armies of consultants get ready to fight for their corporate identity.

The new laws of Corporate Image clearly point to the failure of the traditional Corporate Identity practice, whereby, logo, design, and specific color schemes were everything and the name was only one of the components. Today, under the new laws, names are everything while the other paraphernalia are lost in the crowd. A name is what a corporation needs, to talk about, remember, type, chat, refer, call, praise or curse. The logos, designs, and colors you forget and do not care about, for in these cyber driven economies, they have lost their value. Today everyone is forced to TYPE…you better remember the name and the spelling…you better like it or click on to the next one. Welcome to global e-commerce.

One hour on the Internet and you will go through enough logos, artworks, and designs  equal to the entire work by all the logo shops in the whole world created during the last century. As business gets more complex, the searching ability of a name becomes ever so critical in global e-commerce. Under the new laws of Corporate Image, it’s all in the name, stupid.

Here are 7 steps to measure the life of a Corporate Image in this new global age:

One: A name is lost in the crowd for being too similar or identical to thousands of others. Names borrowed from a dictionary or part of everyday lingo never achieve distinction.

Two: A name is too old fashioned to convey today’s dynamics.

Three: When the spelling of a name requires a higher IQ, weird spellings are used to avoid trademark infringement or to fit the creativity of a spinning logo. This only ensures obscurity. Spell it four different ways, and it will only bring 25% of the hits or profits.

Four: More money is spent in explaining the origin of the name. Why advertise to educate the universe of these name dysfunctionalities? Customers only care about their perceptions; they don’t care about your cute story.

Five: If a corporation does not own a trademark or a domain name, then why bother?

Six: A name is embarrassing in certain countries.

Seven: A name is too long, too difficult, too confusing, too complicated, or simply too boring. Using lower case letters, dashes, slashes, and other dingbat characters in a name will only ensure its own destruction.

So, are we out of names?  This is only a myth, successfully established by creative agencies and logo shops, leaving the clients with often silly names. Naming is a serious black and white exercise and should not be confused with color design and logo campaigns, because today these components have a very limited value. Naming is demanding global experience in corporate nomenclature.