http://www.javiervelilla.es/wordpress/2007/06/18/experience-is-the-product/ Las impresiones de un consultor de comunicación y planner de Barcelona Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:37:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.javiervelilla.es/wordpress/2007/06/18/experience-is-the-product/comment-page-1/#comment-3911 Impresiones, el Blog de Javier Velilla » Blog Archive » Good names, bad names, and terrible names Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:29:18 +0000 http://www.javiervelilla.es/wordpress/?p=162#comment-3911 [...] Acabo de leer (vía Wordlab) el artículo que escribe Theodore Kinni sobre las razones por las que una compañía adopta un buen nombre, una mala denominación o una marca terrible. La idea es que en la actualidad “if you want to sell your widget around the world, you must either find a name that is compelling and legally unencumbered in the ten or fifty or however many different countries in which you plan to market it, or you must come up with a number of different, but still great, country-specific names for the same widget. And, by the way, you must also contend with all of the businesses around the world that are trying to come up with their own great names”. Sobre Kodak: “Over a century ago, Eastman approached the naming process in much the same way that many of today’s brand and trade namers recommend — playfully. According to company lore, he conjured it during a game of anagrams with his mother. He started with a letter. ‘The letter K has been a favorite with me — it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter,’ he said. ‘It became a question of trying out a great number of combinations of letters that made words starting and ending with K’. It sounds rather arbitrary, but Eastman had other reasons for settling on Kodak. ‘This is not a foreign name or word; it was constructed by me to serve a definite purpose,’ he explained on registering his trademark in Great Britain. “It has the following merits as a trade-mark word: First. It is short. Second. It is not capable of mispronunciation. Third. It does not resemble anything in the art and cannot be associated with anything in the art.’ [...] [...] Acabo de leer (vía Wordlab) el artículo que escribe Theodore Kinni sobre las razones por las que una compañía adopta un buen nombre, una mala denominación o una marca terrible. La idea es que en la actualidad “if you want to sell your widget around the world, you must either find a name that is compelling and legally unencumbered in the ten or fifty or however many different countries in which you plan to market it, or you must come up with a number of different, but still great, country-specific names for the same widget. And, by the way, you must also contend with all of the businesses around the world that are trying to come up with their own great names”. Sobre Kodak: “Over a century ago, Eastman approached the naming process in much the same way that many of today’s brand and trade namers recommend — playfully. According to company lore, he conjured it during a game of anagrams with his mother. He started with a letter. ‘The letter K has been a favorite with me — it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter,’ he said. ‘It became a question of trying out a great number of combinations of letters that made words starting and ending with K’. It sounds rather arbitrary, but Eastman had other reasons for settling on Kodak. ‘This is not a foreign name or word; it was constructed by me to serve a definite purpose,’ he explained on registering his trademark in Great Britain. “It has the following merits as a trade-mark word: First. It is short. Second. It is not capable of mispronunciation. Third. It does not resemble anything in the art and cannot be associated with anything in the art.’ [...]

]]>