How Far is Too Far? Risqué Naming for Challenger Brands

        In the ever-evolving landscape of branding, finding the perfect name for your product or company can be a daunting task. The key lies in striking a balance between capturing attention and maintaining brand integrity. This week, we’re diving into the intriguing world of risqué naming and its impact on challenger brands—a topic that’s both controversial and captivating.

Key Takeaways: 

• Understand Your Audience and Strategy: Risqué names can be powerful tools for challenger brands, but they must be selected with a deep understanding of your target audience and brand goals. Ensure the name aligns with your audience’s tolerance for edginess and supports your overall brand strategy.

• Balance Controversy with Memorability: While a controversial name can capture attention and generate buzz, it’s essential to strike a balance. Memorability is important, but not at the expense of alienating your audience. Consider the potential for both positive and negative reactions and how they fit into your brand’s long-term vision.

• Align with Long-Term Goals: A provocative name should be evaluated for its potential to support long-term brand growth and development. It’s not just about being memorable; the name must contribute to sustained brand success and resonate positively with your audience over time.

• Be Intentional and Creative: Whether you choose an edgy or traditional name, the ultimate goal is to select a name that resonates with your audience and aligns with your strategic objectives. Approach naming with intentionality and creativity to ensure your choice supports your brand’s success and enhances its market position.

The Fine Line: How Far Is Too Far? 

The debate around risqué branding often centers on a central question: how far can a name push the boundaries before it crosses into the realm of offensiveness? Pola Lem’s insightful article, “Who Gives a Crap About a Brand Name?” published on July 16th in The Grocer, delves into this very topic. If you haven’t read it yet, it’s a must-see for anyone interested in branding and marketing. The article offers a wealth of insights and real-world examples that are both thought-provoking and entertaining. At the heart of this discussion is the challenge of balancing edginess and irreverence with the potential for alienation.

While a provocative name can cut through the clutter and grab attention, it risks offending or repelling a portion of your target audience. The goal is to generate conversation and curiosity without becoming a flash in the pan.

Case Study: Liquid Death—A Name That Demands Attention

One standout example from Lem’s article is Liquid Death, a brand that has made waves in the water industry with its audacious name. On the surface, “Liquid Death” for bottled water might seem extreme, but it’s a brilliant choice for a category that’s notoriously cluttered. Water is a commodity, and in such a market, standing out is crucial.

Liquid Death’s name achieves multiple objectives: it’s memorable, it provokes a strong reaction, and it aligns perfectly with its target demographic. The brand appeals to younger consumers who are more receptive to edgy and unconventional names. It creates buzz and conversation, helping the brand gain visibility in an otherwise mundane category.

The Other Side of the Coin: DUNG Snack Bars

Not all risqué names land successfully, and Pola Lem highlights “DUNG” for a line of snack bars as a potential misstep. While the name is undeniably memorable, it might be too polarizing for widespread appeal. The term “dung” carries negative connotations that could deter a significant portion of potential customers, despite its shock value.

In branding, the goal is not just to be noticed but to ensure that the name resonates positively with the majority of your audience. A name like DUNG might spark curiosity and generate conversation, but if it alienates a substantial portion of your market, it could hinder long-term growth.

The Sweet Spot: Calculated Controversy

The key to successful risqué naming is managing polarization. A bit of controversy can be advantageous, as it ensures that the brand stands out and generates discussion. However, there’s a delicate balance to maintain. A name that offends a small percentage of your audience can create organic buzz and awareness without harming the overall brand image.

For instance, a name that makes a few people cringe can be beneficial if the majority finds it intriguing or amusing. The goal is to find that sweet spot where the name is provocative enough to be memorable but not so divisive that it jeopardizes brand loyalty.

Testing and Understanding Consumer Reaction

When we test names, we focus on behavioral responses rather than just opinions. People often react to names more instinctively than they articulate. We measure how quickly a name captures attention and how it performs in terms of selection order. This approach helps us understand not just the immediate reaction but also the underlying emotional response.

For example, while a name like DUNG might grab attention quickly, it’s crucial to analyze why it elicits such a response. Does it generate curiosity or disgust? Is the reaction polarizing in a way that could be detrimental to the brand’s long-term success?

The Case of “Who Gives a Crap” Toilet Paper

Another example from Lem’s article is “Who Gives a Crap” for toilet paper. This name is clever and humorous, and it fits well with the category’s typically low engagement. While it might appeal to consumers looking for a novelty purchase, the question remains whether it can sustain long-term growth and brand development.

Names like this often work well for products with low consumer engagement, where a humorous or irreverent name can create a memorable impression. However, for brands aiming for longevity and broad appeal, it’s essential to consider whether the name will continue to resonate positively over time.

Positive Risqué Names: Finding the Right Fit

Not all edgy names are created equal. Some names, while playful or irreverent, still manage to align positively with their brand’s strategy and target audience. A great example is “I Am Nut” for vegan cheese. The name plays on the quirky nature of the vegan community and does so in a fun, positive way. It’s a name that stands out without being offensive, fitting well with the brand’s personality and target market.

Transcription:

Mike Carr (00:01):

This week I have a topic that I think many of you’re going to find very interesting. I’m going to talk about risque naming and challenger brands. So the real question is how far is too far? Pola Lamb wrote a great article in last week’s, the Grocer out of the uk. It was on July 16th. And the article was titled, who Gives a Crap About a Brand Name? And if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend you get a copy. I think you just find it on the web. It’s got a lot of great insights and a lot of great stories. So what it really comes down to is balancing edginess and irreverence and offensiveness with something that cuts through the clutter and gets noticed. One of the examples he cites is Liquid Death, which is a brand for just water. And so you think about is that a good name or is that a bad name?

(01:01):

And the metric that we use for our clients and that I think you need to use for whatever it is your naming is, who’s your target? What is your strategy and what actually your naming? So in the case of water, extremely cluttered category, it’s just water. I mean it’s commodity. Give me a break. A name like Liquid Death is probably brilliant, right? It cuts through the clutter, it gets noticed, it gets that kind of reaction. It maybe generates conversation and curiosity. It also appeals to, I think their target, that younger consumer that’s a little bit more tolerant of edgy, risque names than their parents might be. So another example though that he cites is dung, DUNG, for a line of snack bars. I personally feel that’s probably going a little bit over the edge. Now granted, it might appeal to a very narrow niche of consumers out there, and if that’s all they’re after, okay, but do you really want to eat something called dung?

(02:09):

Again, gen Zers may love it, but I just don’t see that as a brand that you can grow and move to other age segments. So it’s memorable. It generates conversation. But here’s the key, and this is one of the things that I think we always try to look at. How polarizing is it? So a little bit of polarization, a little bit of controversy is a great thing, right? Where a few people really raise their eyebrows and don’t like it because that controversy makes the name worthy of conversation. It’s interesting. And before you know, it sort of spreads organically through the social ether, through the digital space, and everybody’s heard about it. So if you alienate two, 3% of your market with a name

(02:58):

That’s a little edgy, a little polarizing, that’s often a good thing because that means it’s not dull, it’s not boring. And the other 97% of your market that may like the name hear about it much quicker without you having to spend nearly as much money. But a name that’s too polarizing. And I suspect in testing we might find a name like dung. You either love it or you hate it. And if a third or more of your potential market just hates the name and they’re going to talk negatively about it, even though everyone hears about it, is that really where you want to land? Depends on your brand strategy. It depends on what percentage of the total market you want to sell. But I think that’s a little bit risky. Now, when we test names, we look at behavior. So the thing that we’re most interested in is not what they say about a name, because quite frankly, most people don’t even think about names.

(03:57):

They just react, right? So we measure that reaction in terms of the speed and the selection order and some other things. So we actually are testing names for which name cuts through the clutter the quickest and gets noticed, right? That’s a key for a lot of consumer brands. Dung probably does that. But then we ask the why, and that’s where we get into polarization, and that’s where I think you’ve really got a big red flag or a little bitty red flag that you should look at. Now, another comment or another name that that was cited in this article is Who gives a crap toilet paper? What do you think about that name? My guess is it’s probably going to work really well for the novelty purchase for that one-Time purchaser. Is that a sustainable name over time? I don’t know. Can you really grow a brand?

(04:48):

I mean, granted, it’s a low engagement category, and when you have a category where consumers just don’t care and they’re not very excited about the products, who gives a crap toilet paper, might create a sense of humor, a smile on their face, all that kind of stuff. A name though that I do like in the vegan space, the vegan cheese space, I am nut, okay? Vegans are sort of viewed as oddball anyway, and they take great pride in that. So even though that’s a little bit disparaging to me, it’s done in a very fun and actually even in a positive way. And if it aligns with their brand strategy and their personality, then I think it’s a winner. One of the quotes that Polo had in his article is from Mike Cesario, who’s the CEO of Liquid Death. And I think it’s worth thinking about. Here’s the quote, the reasons people make decisions to buy. Products are rarely ever rational, but instead emotional, the reason people make decisions to buy products are rarely rational. They’re more emotional. I think in some

(05:56):

Cases that’s absolutely true. And I think probably for Mike’s brand, liquid death in the water category, I believe it. That’s not always the case. We do a lot of work in the B2B space, and for a lot of our businesses, business clients that are selling to other businesses, it’s not as much an emotional decision as it is a functional or a benefit oriented decision. So a different style of name actually works better there than just the pure emotional and actually something that’s too cute, that’s too consumerish sounding is very off-putting and comes across very unprofessional and not very serious for most of our business clients. So let me give you an example of a name that did work well. We developed this many years ago for Intergraph. It was a CAD cam package, a computer software package for designing things. And it was sold to mechanical engineers and civil engineers that work with physical materials, real objects, not things that are just in the virtual world.

(06:59):

So they worked with solids. So the name we gave them was solid edge. And so they loved the solid because it sort of grounded the cad cam package in what it does, what kinds of materials it works with. And then Edge was really interesting because from a design standpoint, the biggest breakthroughs, the biggest innovations are often made on the edge of something on the fringe, the core, the foundational elements, the physical properties of solids rarely change. But what tweaking you can do on that edge is often where you get that breakthrough. And then the name itself, solid edge, one interpretation of that is it’s giving that engineer a solid edge, an advantage, a consistent real advantage in his or her design problems and prototyping. So the name worked on multiple levels, maybe it had a little bit of emotional cachet, which is great, but more importantly, it was functional and benefit oriented in terms of what it did.

(07:59):

So a challenger brand by definition is disruptive, right? It’s not the leading brand in the category, at least at first. And so when you think about things that disrupt, they often are edgy, they often are a bit irreverent or at least very different than anything else that you’ve seen in the space. But the thing I wanted to leave you with today in this podcast and this video is be very mindful and very intentional and very aware of who you’re targeting, how they might react to a name that’s too edgy, and if that’s okay, right? If you’re not targeting the masses, if you’ve got a very small niche, a very small percentage of the overall potential market that you’re going after, then maybe a name like dung or who gives a crap for toilet paper is okay, personally, I

(08:54):

Like that are fun. But from a more positive standpoint, right? Names that while I might elicit some chuckles, might raise a few eyebrows, I am nut, okay for a vegan cheese, I love that style of name because you don’t have the same negative associations and you’ve got more of a positive kind of vibe to me that might fit the strategy. It might have longer life in the market. It might let you grow the brand. So regardless of what you decide to do and regardless of what name you pick, think about polarization, not just the golden rule of naming, which is memorability. And all these names in this podcast and in this article, I think are very memorable. And that is the golden rule. That’s the most important thing to achieve, but not at the risk of alienating your audience. And once you have a name, also remember that requires constant care and feeding that your messaging always has to be consistent with your original brand strategy. You can’t go too far afield, and I think you’re going to have much success and much growth. See you next week.