The Name We Tried to Kill (and Why It Won)

Years ago, I was part of a team tasked with choosing a name for a new brand. It was an important project, and we wanted to get it right. For many of us, it was also the first time in life when we did this exercise.

But there was a twist: our real goal wasn’t just to find the best name. It was to stop a senior stakeholder from choosing the one he liked. He had a name in mind, one he really believed in.

We didn’t like it. Not the name, not the direction, not the fact that it came from the top. It felt off. Too bold. Too strange. Too far from what the market was used to.

So, like any responsible team of professionals (or so we thought), we turned to research. We launched the full process: first focus groups to generate alternate names, then a quantitative study to validate the shortlist. A textbook approach. Everything was structured, rigorous, professional.

We went through the whole process, hoping that data would save us from what we believed was a terrible naming decision. But deep down, we weren’t really looking for the truth. We were trying to outvote the boss.

We had the data. We had the charts. But we didn’t have the story. We failed.

Not because the research wasn’t thorough. Not because the results were unclear. We failed because we underestimated something that research couldn’t fully measure: vision.

The whole approach was wrong for this kind of decision, anyway. Naming isn’t about picking the most popular word in a poll. It’s not about which one people like most on first impression. It’s about long-term meaning. About the story the name can tell, the associations it can build, and how well it fits with the vision behind the brand. That’s what we didn’t get.

Our senior stakeholder’s name had all that. We just didn’t see it at the time. It was unfamiliar. It didn’t test well at first. But it was part of a bigger concept that made perfect sense once it all came together. The brand ended up being a success and the name, the one we resisted so hard, became a natural fit.

I learned a lot from that experience. About power dynamics, about how hard it is to be objective when your pride is on the line, and about what really matters when choosing a name. Because naming a product, especially for a product manager or a founder, is emotional. You feel like you’re naming your child. And when someone else tries to name it for you, it feels wrong. Even when they’re right.

So what should you do when your boss, or your investor, or the board, tells you what your product should be called?

You listen. You don’t have to agree, but you do have to understand where they’re coming from. Maybe they’ve seen something you haven’t. Maybe they’ve got a bigger picture in mind.

You make room for real conversations. You bring others into the room. When it really matters, you bring in a good branding agency, not because they’ll find the perfect name, but because they’ll create the space for the right process, away from personal bias and internal politics.

Or if you need to do it faster or cheaper and you still really want to do it right, at least you don’t run isolated focus groups or surveys. You follow a proper process instead. One that starts with understanding the brand’s core idea, positioning, values, and tone. Then explore naming directions that align with that foundation, not just a random list of “cool” options. Only after that do a test, and even then, you’re not measuring popularity, you’re testing strategic fit and long-term potential.

I’m not saying research is useless. But using it to prove someone wrong instead of seeking the truth is a fast track to bad decisions. That’s what we did back then and we paid the price.

One last thing. A name won’t make or break a brand. But how you choose it says a lot about how you build things and who you’re building them for. It also matters a lot what you do with it afterward. Even the best name won’t save a bad product. And even a weird, uncomfortable name can grow on people if the story, the product, and the experience are strong enough.