EVs: Easy as the ABC’s? Name Systems for EVs are all over the Map

Key Takeaways: The Art and Science of Naming

• Complexity and Evolution: Naming is a multifaceted discipline that continuously evolves. Brands must stay attuned to technological advancements and shifting market dynamics to remain relevant.

• Importance of Context: A name’s effectiveness is heavily influenced by its context. What works for one brand or product may not be suitable for another, making it crucial to understand the specific environment and goals of your naming strategy.

• Balancing Brand Equity and Innovation: Maintaining a brand’s established reputation while introducing new and innovative names requires careful consideration. Striking the right balance helps in preserving brand integrity while appealing to evolving customer expectations.

• Flexibility in Naming Systems: Effective naming systems should be adaptable to future changes. Rigid structures can limit a brand’s ability to expand or evolve, so flexibility is key to long-term success.

• Ongoing Exploration: The art of naming is dynamic, and future discussions will continue to explore how different industries address these challenges. Stay tuned for more insights into how naming strategies evolve with technological and market shifts.

Introduction: Embracing Change in the Naming Landscape

Welcome to another episode of “Naming in an AI Age.” Today, we’re diving into how the art and science of naming have transformed in the digital and electric vehicle (EV) era. While the term “AI” may be a recent addition to our vocabulary, the principles of effective naming are as old as branding itself. In this discussion, we’ll explore the evolution of naming conventions and how they’ve adapted to technological advancements, particularly in the context of EVs and digital platforms.

The Dynamics of Naming in a Digital Era

In today’s fast-paced world, naming a product or service isn’t just about picking a catchy title; it’s about fitting into an ever-evolving digital landscape. Names have to resonate with audiences who are not just tech-savvy but also more informed than ever. As brands navigate this new terrain, they face the challenge of choosing names that are both relevant and memorable in a crowded market.

Consider the criticism often levied at descriptive names. Critics argue that names like “Dunkin Latte” lack creativity and fail to stand out. However, this perspective misses the broader context. For Dunkin’, the goal is to ensure that customers can quickly identify and order their product without confusion. In this scenario, a straightforward name makes sense, aligning with their branding strategy and operational constraints.

The Role of Context in Naming

Understanding the context in which a name will be used is crucial. Dunkin’, for example, aims for simplicity and brand consistency across its menu. The name “Dunkin Latte” fits perfectly within their strategy, given the constraints of menu board space and the need for quick recognition. In contrast, a high-end automotive brand launching a $40,000 EV might prioritize a different naming strategy, one that reflects the sophistication and innovation of the product.

The name “Mustang Mach-E” from Ford illustrates how heritage and innovation can blend. The Mustang brand carries a legacy of sportiness and performance. By adding “Mach-E,” Ford acknowledges the electric nature of the vehicle while leveraging the Mustang’s established reputation. This strategy caters to both new buyers and loyal customers, balancing modernity with tradition.

Balancing Brand Equity and Innovation

When naming products, especially in established brands, there’s a delicate balance between maintaining brand equity and introducing innovation. For instance, BMW’s electric vehicles like the i3, i4, and i5 follow a naming system that aligns with their existing series. This approach works well for existing customers familiar with BMW’s naming conventions. However, it may pose challenges if the company needs to introduce new models that don’t fit neatly into the existing hierarchy.

The problem becomes apparent when trying to expand or refine a naming system. BMW’s approach, while logical, could create complications if new models need to slot in between existing ones. Similarly, credit card companies once used names like “Silver,” “Gold,” and “Platinum” to denote card tiers. The addition of “Titanium” and other materials later on highlights the challenge of keeping a naming system relevant and flexible over time.

Evaluating Naming Systems: Flexibility and Relevance

Effective naming systems should offer flexibility and avoid pigeonholing a brand into a rigid structure. For instance, numerical or alphabetical systems can become limiting if they don’t account for future growth or changes. The key is to create a system that allows for expansion without causing confusion or diluting the brand’s core message.

Case Studies: Real-World Applications and Lessons Learned

Let’s look at a couple of examples to illustrate these points further:

1. Dunkin’: The straightforward naming strategy works well in a fast-food environment where quick recognition is paramount. The simplicity of “Dunkin Latte” aligns with the brand’s operational needs and helps customers make swift decisions.

2. Ford’s Mustang Mach-E: By integrating “Mach-E” with the iconic Mustang name, Ford successfully communicates both the electric nature of the vehicle and its performance pedigree. This approach appeals to both traditional Mustang enthusiasts and new customers interested in electric vehicles.

3. BMW’s i Series: BMW’s i3, i4, and i5 naming system works within the existing BMW framework but may face challenges with future model introductions. The system is effective for current customers but may need adaptation for broader market appeal.

Transcription:

Ashley Elliott (00:12):

Hello and welcome to naming an AI age. Although today I think we should really consider naming an EV age or in a technology age. We really think about all the ways that naming has evolved over time based on the digital era. Should every name have its own naming system? Should every name have its own brand name? What do we really need to think about when it comes to naming

Mike Carr (00:38):

Out of context? It’s easy to look at a name that’s more of a descriptive name. It isn’t real brand like and say, well, that’s a crappy name. Why didn’t they come up with something more creative? Well, there are many reasons for that. Had you understood the scenario, the situation, you would’ve said, that’s absolutely the best name. Or if they’re willing to spend a lot of money and depending upon the competitive set, and if all the competitors have boring, descriptive names and they’re willing to put the time and effort into it, then a cool brand like name is definitely the way to go. Certain types of names will work really well for certain constituencies in terms of age, gender, parts of the world that they’re in, other types of names would fall flat.

Ashley Elliott (01:19):

What are some other things that we may not consider as a lay person looking in to the things that had to be thought about when coming up with a name?

Mike Carr (01:27):

How is the name going to be used? Dunkin as an example. Well, Dunkin came out with Dunkin Latte for their new latte coffee, and the criticism was, well, that’s a boring ho-hum name, lazy name. What are the constraints that Dunkin’s working within and what are the goals that they’re trying to accomplish? Right? So they have a menu board, right? And they have some consistency in the names across that menu board, not in every case, and they want to lean into their Dunkin equity, so they want to build names that differentiate, Hey, this is a Dunkin branded product, and they want to quickly communicate what it is. Well, it’s a latte dunk. A latte doesn’t require hardly any brainpower. You’re driving up to the Dunkin window and you want to order a latte, and that’s what it is. You don’t have to ask any questions. Maybe you can pick a flavor and you’re done.

(02:17):

I think it’s a great name in that constraint of you’ve got a menu board, you got a bunch of other names, you’re not going to spend a ton of money building some fufu brand and then cause confusion and have your customers try to figure out what exactly is that thing. That’s a totally different environment than if you’re a very upscale automotive brand and you’re selling a new $40,000 EV, and you’re going to put some money behind that, right? You’re going to drive people to that dealership or to the website, and you’re maybe in a situation where your competitor’s names are esoteric and meaningless, and so you have a different target. They’re going to 40 grand, not four bucks for a coffee. They’re going to put a lot more time and effort into what that decision’s all about, and a name that is a little bit cooler that has more of a story, they’re going to spend more time listening to that story.

Ashley Elliott (03:13):

There’s one thing with thinking about brand equity specifically with the coffee situation, but if it’s an EV and some people use, they have the Mustang Mach E versus one that has a specific model Y or model X, I think specifically with Tesla, what’s the difference and is there a risk of overpromising and under-delivering when it comes to the Mustang is known for a certain thing, but if you have an EV and something goes wrong with that, is there some risk involved with there? Does that play a difference in the naming situation?

Mike Carr (03:43):

The Mustang, it is a hollowed brand name. I mean, it’s been around for decades. There’s a certain sporty image associated with the Mustang. The M as a sub-brand has got also a very storied history. You think about Mach three, Mach five, Mach seven, there’s a performance implication there. When you put the E on the end of it, instead of a number, it does take you to electric. So it’s sort of cool and you’re not diminishing the value of both the Mustang brand or the mock brand with some other longer maybe cool name. But then it takes away from the other two things that you’re trying to build equity in or maintain equity in and update and refresh. First and foremost, we want Mustang still be a very hip relevant brand, especially for the younger folks that are now buying the car for the first time upgrading.

(04:43):

We still want to retain though that equity for the older buyers that still want to think of themselves as younger. So there are lots of decisions that go into that kind of branding and naming and thought process. It doesn’t take a lot of brand building to put a little E on the end of a mock and for people to sort of get like, oh, that E stands for electric. I mean, that’s pretty simple, pretty straightforward. Whereas you look at some of the other car that are EVs now and they’ve got the IX four something or other or the, I mean, they’re just meaningless gobbledygook, and it’s much harder to figure out is that electric or not? I mean, what is

Ashley Elliott (05:24):

That? Using a numerical system is not always helpful if you have to discontinue a specific brand and stuff like that, would you want to, and I guess with the alphabet too, just depending on, unless you want that letter to specifically stand for something,

Mike Carr (05:36):

Does your naming system, if you need to have a good, better, best relationship, so this can be for automobiles, like BMW has the I three, the I five, and the I seven. Well, if you’re a BMW customer and you’re very familiar with the series three, series five or the series seven, then that’s not a big leap. Putting a little eye in there for the electric connotation makes a lot of sense, and you get it because you’re part of the BMW ecosystem. You’ve been exposed and been paying attention to their advertising for years. If BMW is trying to track a lot of new people into their ecosystem that aren’t that familiar with the different series names, it’s not a very good name, right? It doesn’t have any emotional cache, any appeal. And it also might be a little bit too limiting down the road if all of a sudden BMW wants to put something in between the I three and the I five, well, they call it I four.

(06:38):

Great, now you’ve got good, better, best I three, I four, I five. Well then let’s say in a couple of years they want to put something between the I four and the I five. Well, then what do you do? Well, the I 4.5 and the credit card companies we worked for over the decades, you had the silver card, believe it or not, at one point there was a silver credit card and that was used as more premium than the standard. And then of course they came up with the gold, then they came up with the platinum, and then it was like, what comes after platinum? And that gets to be, well, you’ve got the black card that’s sort of different than gold where you’ve got titanium. Well, is titanium really a better card than platinum? So when you come up with a naming system where you’re going to have this hierarchical good, better, best, you need to think about over time, does it give you the flexibility to add additional offerings anywhere, not just at the high end and not just at the low end, but often in between. And now you’re sort of in a pickle because what’s better than silver but not as good as gold silver plus? I don’t know. That’s part of the problem,

Ashley Elliott (07:49):

Man. I can just see those old comic strips, and I guess they still have ’em now on some of these where you have the explicative and they have all these little symbols. We’re just going to have a name with just a bunch of little symbols at the end of it and have to figure out what that means. But yeah, no, that’s super helpful to think of flexibility within a naming system, not pigeonholing yourself into a certain structure to where later on you’re not able to expand as needed. So I think that’s super helpful. Anything else you have for us?

Mike Carr (08:14):

Never, ever discount context. There’s so many things that go into picking the right kind of name beyond just how that name initially hit you, right? What is the brand strategy? What other names that you may already have? Does the new name need to work with? How disruptive or revolutionary do you want the name to be versus evolutionary? And then the targets, usually it’s not just a single focus. You’ve got a primary and a secondary and a tertiary. Is the name legally available? Does the name mean anything that’s offensive to one of the key constituencies that you’re targeting? Is your vision over time to go outside the us? What other languages, what other cultures, what other considerations should there be? So it’s a fun journey, but it’s not a simple journey, and that’s why we’ve been doing this for almost 40 years,

Ashley Elliott (09:12):

And every layer is another layer peeled that we try to get to the center of a good name. So we appreciate that. Thank you for all your insight today, Mike. And stay tuned with us as we talk more about naming in an AI age.