命名专家分享打造 Azure、Vercel、Windsurf、Sonos、Blackberry 和 Impossible Burger 等十亿美元品牌名背后的流程 | David Placek(Lexicon Branding)
Naming expert shares the process behind creating billion-dollar brand names like Azure, Vercel, Windsurf, Sonos, Blackberry, and Impossible Burger | David Placek (Lexicon Branding)
Full Interview Transcript
David Placek: Your brand name, nothing’s going to be used more often or for longer than that name. Design will change, messaging will change, products will change, but that name is there.
Lenny Rachitsky: What’s a name that you came up with that you had to fight super hard for, that the client just hated?
The Power of Brand Names
David Placek: When we presented Sonos, it was rejected because it’s not entertainment-like. We argued about that because I said, “This is outside looking in, but I don’t see you as an entertainment company.” Humans do like to be comfortable. Part of our job here is to help people to give the confidence going bigger and being uncomfortable.
Today’s Guest: David Placek
Lenny Rachitsky: There’s a quote that I found of yours, “If your team is comfortable with the name, chances are you don’t have the name yet.”
David Placek: We look for polarization. We look for tension in a team arguing about these things. Polarization is a sign of strength in the word. Most clients, they come to a naming project absolutely believing with full confidence that they’re going to know it when they see it, and the truth is it almost never happens.
The Main Conversation
Lenny Rachitsky: Most people listening to this are founders, a lot of PMs on product teams. Let’s say they have a couple of weeks, got to come up with a name. What should they do?
Today, my guest is David Placek. David is the founder of Lexicon Branding, which pioneered the field of brand naming, and invented a few names that you may have heard of including Powerbook, Pentium, Blackberry, Swiffer, the Impossible Burger. Also, Vercel, Windsurf, CapCut, and Azure. In our conversation, David opens up about the very specific process that he and his team go through to find winning names, including a simple exercise that you can do with you and your team to help you find the right name in just a few weeks. We also talk about why a great name is worth spending your time on, why you won’t know a great name when you see it, and why you need to feel uncomfortable about the name first. Also, why big team brainstorms don’t ever lead to great names. The stories behind names like Pentium, and Sonos, and Vercel, and Windsurf. Also, such interesting insights about the feeling and energy of every letter of the alphabet and so much more.
This episode is designed for anyone trying to figure out a name for their product or company, and also just for anyone that’s interested in hearing the stories of how some of the most iconic names came to be. If you enjoy this podcast, don’t forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube. And if you become a paid subscriber of my newsletter, you get a year free of a bunch of amazing products including Bolt, Linear, Superhuman, Notion, Perplexity, Granola and more. Check it out at lennysnewsletter.com and click bundle. With that, I bring you David Placek.
Last year, 1.3% of the global GDP flowed through Stripe. That’s over $1.4 trillion. And driving that huge number are the millions of businesses growing more rapidly with Stripe. For industry leaders like Forbes, Atlassian, OpenAI, and Toyota, Stripe isn’t just financial software. It’s a powerful partner that simplifies how they move money, making it as seamless and borderless as the internet itself. For example, Hertz boosted its online payment authorization rates by 4% after migrating to Stripe. And imagine seeing a 23% lift in revenue like Forbes did just six months after switching to Stripe for subscription management. Stripe has been leveraging AI for the last decade to make its product better at growing revenue for all businesses, from smarter checkouts to fraud prevention and beyond. Join the ranks of over half of the Fortune 100 companies that trust Stripe to drive change. Learn more at stripe.com.
David, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast.
The Sonos Naming Story
David Placek: Thank you. I’m excited about today and looking forward to the conversation.
The Instant Recognition Myth
Lenny Rachitsky: Me, too. These are actually my favorite kinds of conversations because this topic is so outside of my wheelhouse, and I know I’m just going to learn a ton. Also, this is just something that every founder and product builder has to think about at some point, and they have no idea what they’re doing. And then, their name becomes so core to their identity. It’s hardly the word they say more than any other word. And I feel like I’ve never heard advice on how to do this well. So, I’m really excited for this conversation.
I’m going to just dive into a question. And the question is just what’s a name that you came up with, and your team came up with, that you had to fight super hard for that the client just hated, and you ended up winning. And now, it’s just such an obviously awesome name that everyone loves.
The Microsoft Azure Naming Story
David Placek: The story I like to tell is a story of Sonos. One, a great client team. I worked with all the founders. But at the time, they were stuck on being in a brand name that put them in the entertainment business. And so when we presented Sonos, which has many qualities to it, it was rejected because it doesn’t have enough emotion to it. It’s not entertainment-like. And we argued about that because I said, “This is outside looking in, but I don’t see you as an entertainment company. You make speakers that allow for the flow of entertainment through these things. And Sonos is about sound.” But it had a particular quality. It’s called a palindrome, which really means that you can flip it and it means the same thing. In the case of Sonos, you could also turn it upside down and it was essentially the same.
And so that got them thinking about this, but they were still has… So I left that meeting in Santa Barbara, and I came back and they were still struggling with it. And I got on a plane, didn’t even bill them for this, went back down to Santa Barbara and met with them again and said, “I really believe in this name and I think it’s the right for you.” And at a certain point, one of the founders, Bob MacFarlane, who’s just a wonderful client. I could see him thinking, and he said, “You know? We’re trying to name this for ourselves, and what we really should be doing is naming it for the marketplace and the customers. And I think Sonos now is the right name. And I felt really good about that.” He later wrote me a note about how I help to do that, and we use it sometimes in credentials presentations because it’s such a nice note.
But Sonos is something I’m so glad that I had this internal energy to, “I got to go down there and make a bid for this.” I don’t do that often, by the way, but I felt very strongly about Sonos.
The Power of a Good Name
Lenny Rachitsky: I love Sonos. I love the name. I have many Sonos products. How often does this happen where the client is just, “No, this is not the name. We have this bigger vision, we have a whole other idea of it.” And then you convince them.
David Placek: Well, it happens all of the time. And it’s a little bit bidirectional, right? Most clients, and I can understand this, they come to a naming project absolutely believing, with full confidence, that they’re going to know it when they see it. And the truth is, it almost never happens. I think this year we’ll hit 4,000 projects that we’ve completed.
And it’s interesting, we’ll tell people in a very polite way, “You’re not going to know when you see it.” But I know they don’t believe me. And even when… You could see them thinking that, “You know what? He was right. I really have to think about this. I have to process it.” And part of that, part of why clients don’t like the bolder names, the more imaginative names that we present is they are looking for comfort. And that’s the opposite that what you want to do. And part of our job here is to help people to give the confidence that going bolder, and bigger, and being uncomfortable. I use the expression, “There is no power in comfort, not in the marketplace.”
Invention: Creative Team and Language Engine
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow. There’s so much here already. So this idea of you’re not going to know it when you see it is something that people come in with thinking like, “Once I see it, it’ll be obvious.” Just why is that almost never the case? Is it because the name has to be something that is uncomfortable?
The Engineering Layer of Creativity
David Placek: There’s a lot of psychology to this, which ironically, I never even took a psychology class in college or graduate school. But the first element is humans do like to be comfortable. And one of the mechanisms of comfort is if something’s been successful before, then I feel like I can approve it or select it. This is why movies like Harry Potter or even novels like Jack London’s Call of the Wild get rejected so many times. I think Harry Potter was rejected 16 or 18 times, and Jack London’s book even more than that. I mean, think about it. He’s pitching a book and they say, “What are you talking about here? You’re saying a dog becomes a wolf? I’ve never heard of anything like that.” So, we really do have to help people think about, “It’s not about the past. You’re actually creating the future.” And we really talk to people and emphasize the idea, “This isn’t a name you’re creating. We’re creating an experience for you. We’re going to work together.”
And our conversations always start with, “Talk to us about how you behave now and how you want to behave in the future,” as opposed to, “Tell me about your positioning, tell me about your values, tell me about your mission.” That’s really kind of old thinking. It’s very traditional, and that did work 25 or 30 years ago. But this is a far more complex, interconnected world, a digital world now that stuff just doesn’t create… It doesn’t create names like Sonos or some of our other credentials that we probably will talk about today.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, we’re going to talk about just the process you guys go through, so stay tuned for that. But before we get to that, is there’s another story you can share that shows this idea of being bold?
From Ideation to Screening
David Placek: I’ll talk about Microsoft’s Azure. So when Microsoft came to us, they were pretty much stuck. And Microsoft does… And in many ways, to their credit, a lot of things don’t need to be named. They don’t need trademarks. They don’t need brand names. They need descriptors. And so they came to us to develop a name that started or ended with cloud. Made sense to them because it was a cloud service. And our reaction was, “If you do that, you’re going to be in an ocean of other cloud this, cloud that. And you have an opportunity as Microsoft here to really emerge as a leader in this.” And so, there was a discussion about, “Okay, we’ll take a look at those, but we’d like to see some cloud names.” Which is easy to do, by the way.
Backgrounds of the Creative Team
Lenny Rachitsky: Classic.
Cross-Domain Analogies in Naming
David Placek: So, we did that. And along the way, we came up with this word azure, which is another word for blue. And so there was a link to clouds, blue sky clouds, things like that, but we really presented it based on its linguistic qualities. It’s a noisy word, that Z in there. It starts with an A, and it ends in a nice smooth flow. So, we really strive to do create names that are balanced. And in a very busy competitive world, having a strong signal, which is generated by noise is a good thing.
The reaction wasn’t good. One of the clients said, “That’s just a dumb idea.” Remarks like that. At this point, after these four decades, it just rolls off my back like water off a duck is what my grandmother would say. But I think along the way, as we talked about it, they began to warm up to this. And now of course it’s, I don’t know, a $100 billion brand or something like that. But that’s an example of, “I haven’t seen that before. I’m very comfortable with cloud. Cloud is what it is. We’re describing it.” But that’s a statement. And I think that… Well, I don’t think I know that’s what I said in one of the presentations is, “You don’t want to make a statement here. You want to start a story.” And Azure is going to behave differently in the marketplace than Cloud Pro, which is I think one of the names that we presented to them on the other site at their request.
Lenny Rachitsky: I’m glad they went with Azure. Let me actually ask this question. I know you’re biased, but just how important is a great name? If you had a better name than a product that was better than you, does that make a big difference? Just anything you can share there to help people see this is the power of a great name.
From Abstract to Concrete: Windsurf
David Placek: Let’s look just at the reality of this. Your brand name, whether it’s a product name or a company name, nothing’s going to be used more often or for longer than that name. Design will change, messaging will change, products will change, but that name is there. So, I like to talk about this idea of cumulative advantage. Over time, as people buy more and more of the product, they see it more often, that their bond between you and that brand, or them and the brand I should say, becomes stronger and stronger. So you want that name to stick in their mind to be distinctive, because distinctiveness is what creates that cumulative advantage.
The second thing is this notion of what I call asymmetric advantage. It makes perfect sense, and most clients agree with this when we say this is that even before you launch this brand, why not start with an advantage in the marketplace? And you won’t get an advantage if you’re descriptive. If you are Cloud Pro and there’s 10 other cloud services, you’re not going to stand out in the marketplace. You won’t have the ability to create necessarily that cumulative advantage in the marketplace.
So, those are my two reasons why names are, I think, done right. And we do talk about our mission is not creating good names. A lot of people can do that. Our mission is to create the right name for clients, because the right name does deliver asymmetric advantage and cumulative advantage for you. And that, for us, has almost unlimited value.
Lenny Rachitsky: This is a great answer. Essentially what you’re saying is it’s not going to necessarily make or break you, but it gives you an advantage. A great name gives you an advantage, especially if you’re just getting started. You need every advantage you can get.
Unique Challenges of Naming AI
David Placek: Exactly. And this is maybe a little bit off a tangent, but one of the best books on marketing I’ve ever read, which is not a book on marketing, and you may have read it along the way in college if you studied any Greek or classics. It’s called the Melian Dialogues. And it’s a dialogue… It’ll take anybody listening to this maybe 25 minutes to read it. Between the Athenians and the government of Melos, the Athenians had decided that they needed that island. And they went and approached them very nice way, that, “We want to take over the island. Nothing will change. You’ll be taxed a little bit, but we’ll protect you.” And the Athenians had thought every aspect about how to take that island before. So by the time they got there, they had created asymmetric advantage in terms of ships, and men, and all of this other stuff.
By the way, in the book, there’s no mention of marketing or brand strategy or any of these things, but if you read it, you begin to see that it’s marketing, really, is about a symmetric advantage. And so, why not start from the very beginning with an advantage? That’s the value of a name.
When to Change Your Company Name
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s dive into the actual process you guys go through, and I want to read a quote that Guillermo Rauch shared when I asked him about what it was like working with you. He’s the CEO and co-founder of Vercel, which you guys worked with. I definitely want to hear that story, by the way. So he said, “Before David, the ability to name something was like charisma. You either have it or you don’t. It was so surreal to watch his team distill it down to a science.”
So let me just ask you, what does that science look like? What are the steps to coming up with an amazing name for your product or company that you guys go through?
David Placek: That’s very nice of Guillermo. He is a very impressive innovator in this category and we greatly enjoyed working with him. Well, our process is real. I break it down in three steps. First, we have to identify, then we invent, and then we implement. It’s just three things. It’s not rocket science, but it’s a combination of creativity and discipline. And obviously, talented people and experience in these things. So, let’s just go through those things. In the first section of identify, it’s really trying to find out from the client, let’s talk about behavior. So, how are you behaving now and how do you want to behave in the future? That behavior is bidirectional. In other words, the marketplace behaves towards a Vercel, that’s the name we created for Guillermo. And they behave towards the marketplace. And that’s an important point because everything… Buildings are bidirectional. Look at a building, you behave differently towards a temple than you or a church versus a Holiday Inn in terms of how that architecture states. So, we focus on that. Behavior is closely aligned for us with experience. How do you want the experience of this brand?
Now, when we listen to those things, we begin to think about rhythm of the name. So something like Dasani has a lot of rhythm to it, right? It’s kind of calming. And so, we’ll begin to extract things from that discussion on experience. We will then, also, as part of this first phase, look at the competition. We call that developing a landscape. And we’re looking for what are the words… What are the brand names, first, and then what language are they using in this space? Because we have to be distinctive. If a brand name isn’t distinctive, you lose. Then, you’re imitating. And that’s a form of suicide. That’s a famous quote from some… I think the president of P&G 50 years ago or something like that. So, that’s that first phase which allows us to create what we call a creative framework. And we don’t even use the word objectives here because that gets too logical.
Actually, framework for us is a metaphor for a window for us, and our teams, and our linguists to travel through. To open things up so that we’re not coming back with a narrow list of names. We’re coming back with names that have depth, and breadth, and have different experiences and personalities to them. And clients will sign off on that. And then, we get going. So now, we’re moved to the invent stage.
And in the invent stage, we do really two things. You can look at this as two layers of our process. I think the second layer is probably what makes us quite unique in the marketplace. It’s the result of millions of dollars of R&D on our part. So the first thing is, no surprise to anyone, we work with creative individuals. And we don’t use… This will be contrary. We don’t use large brainstorming sections. I did. When I first started the company, I used freelancers, I used large brainstorming groups. And along the way through some analysis, we really discovered that that was not really working for us. That actually, the names were coming from employees and from small groups. And so we’ve moved our process to, at least, two or three small teams of two people.
And each of those teams… So let’s say on significant projects, we always use three teams. And each team gets a different briefing. One team knows everything about the project but the other teams don’t. If we’re working for Microsoft, the second team thinks they’re working for Apple. I mean, they know it’s disguised. We’re not keeping this from anyone. And then the third team, we take it out of computers, and they might be naming a bicycle or a car or something like that. What we’re trying to do is open up the coffers of creativity for this. And so when people are working on what they know is not the real assignment, they are now free to make all kinds of mistakes. And so, most of our names have come out of the second or third team because they’re-
The Role of Linguists
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow.
David Placek: Yeah. I think the process, at some point, I will hopefully write either a good article on this or maybe even a book. But this process would work for, I think, a lot of things. I know it would. All right now, what’s that second layer that I talked about? Well, we have made significant investments in this area of linguistics and cognitive science, and it’s in two ways. One, building proprietary knowledge. So we know through research that we funded, an extensive amount about an area in language called or linguistics called the sound symbolism. So, what are the sounds of the 26 letters of the alphabet and what do they do? How do they evoke things? Well, it turns out that each of those letters sends out a signal that creates a certain sort of vibration, if you will, or experience.
Now, there’s been research on that over the years but there were some gaps, and we decided to fill this. And over the years, we’ve had a very good relationship with Stanford University, with their Department of Linguistics. We’ve hired linguists from MIT, from Berkeley. We have a linguistic internship here. I actually just ran this number, preparing for this discussion. We have employed, over four decades now, 253 linguists. Most of them PhDs, some of them contracts, some of them actual employees. That’s a lot of intellectual knowledge. So we really have, what I call, a linguistic engine here. And then we now have an operating network of… I just checked on this figure yesterday. We have 108 linguists in 76 countries that help us. Some of them do creative work, others will do just the analysis of names for us. So now, we have that creative framework, we have creative teams working on this.
Now, we’re tapping into databases that have over 18,000 small word units, technically called morphemes. So, we also can tap in from a sound standpoint. What are the sounds of reliability? What are the sounds of aliveness? And so with Sonos, by the way, we wanted things that are somewhat noisy. And so S is a noisy letter, like a Z or even a V. And so, you begin to set priorities about what letters we’re going to use. And that work from that, we call it an engineering layer floats up into the creative teams. And so, it’s a mixture of things at a certain point in time.
All right. Now, what happens to all that? At a certain point, usually 3 to 4 weeks into this, we might have 2 or 3,000 ideas. I say ideas because they’re not all solutions, they’re not all workable. They may be just beginning ideas, concepts. And we sift through those. And now one of the major challenges that we face, and certainly our clients face, is the need to clear a trademark for it to be not in conflict with a marketplace that is… We’re almost reaching a tipping point in terms of difficulty of clearing names here. And so we have paralegals here, and we have a trademark attorney, and we’ll analyze those names. That gets us to a much smaller set. And then, we’ll do our linguistic work with our linguists, and we end up with a set of names to show our clients.
We’ll do this twice with most assignments. Sometimes, we’ll do just one time depending on timing and budget. But we really try to get two cycles here, partly because humans love to compare. If you’re looking for a house, you don’t just look at the first house and say, “Okay, let’s sign us up.” You look and you learn that we don’t need a swimming pool, but we do need a view. It’s the same with names. And so, we get feedback from our clients. And sometimes, that’s a co-creative process where a client will come up with a word or a solution and we’ll then run that through our screening mechanisms for them. And that’s really the process. The final phase is implementing.
The Vitality of Letters
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s actually pause at that because I would, so much, I want to talk about with the second step, but we’ll get to the step three. They’re just blowing my mind, all the things you guys do here. This is incredible. There’s so many things here that are so unlike what I expected.
First of all, the creative folks that are actually coming up with these names, what’s the background of these people? Who are these people?
David Placek: So, the fundamental quality is they’re going to be curious and they’re going to be hardworking. This is… And hopefully… And this is hard to screen for, but lower egos. This is unlike the advertising business which I came from, so I’ve six years at a large agency. Where a creative person or a copywriter can think about something and come in with 3 or 4 alternatives in terms of a headline or body copy. And that might be refined a little bit and maybe sent back to the drawing boards altogether, but it’s a relatively simple process. And no disrespect intended there.
Here, I can’t just sit down and say, “Okay, we’re naming a new car here. And so, I’m going to generate 100 names and you generate 100 names, and something will fall out.” Those names will not… There’s not enough in that list to clear through our screens. Of legal screens, our linguistic screens. And remember, we start with a creative framework and a criteria that the names need to meet. So, we’re looking for people who can churn out a lot of work. And when that’s rejected, they just keep going. So, we look for tenacious people. Now, we have… And we’ll probably get to this later, but we have software here that helps people generate names. Not really… Maybe five years down the road, it’ll actually spit out solutions, but now it’s helping us to generate ideas and directions and what I… Sound symbolism, ideas, word unit, prefixes, suffixes, things like that. So, it’s relatively easy for anyone that works here to develop a list of 2 or 300 names over a 3 or 4-day period.
Where do we find these people? More who are writers from newspaper reporters because they have to work fast. Their stories get rejected. People who might have written a novel. We have hired people from agencies over the years. They work a little less effectively than others who have a speechwriter from… I wrote speeches in Washington. Those people have to work hard, crank out a lot of material, get rejected. Candidate says, “I don’t like this, start over.” Those are more resilient people. That’s where they come from. It’s not easy to find these people. It really isn’t.
Understanding Processing Fluency
Lenny Rachitsky: Let me just throw out here. I’m going to ask you after we go through this process, what people that don’t have the resources and time to do this, what they should do to come up with a good name. I’m just going to let people know as they’re listening because-
David Placek: Sure.
A Three-Step Process Recap
Lenny Rachitsky: … I imagine many people are wondering, but let’s not go there yet.
David Placek: Okay.
The Naming Funnel
Lenny Rachitsky: How long does this process usually take? What’s the ideal length the company should expect when they want to come up with an amazing name?
Naming Strategies for Startups
David Placek: For us, the ideal link is pretty short. It’s eight weeks. For larger corporate projects where you have boards and a little more politicking to do, and a few more presentations, it’s a three-month churn. And sometimes by the time they approve things and clear, it’s a four-months process.
On Choosing Bold Names
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, cool. So eight weeks mostly if you’re a big company with a lot of red tape. You have to work through then longer.
Okay, this point you made about three different teams with different almost context is so interesting. So say, let’s use Windsurf as an example, which is an amazing name, killing it, that you guys helped come up with. So is the idea there, okay, here’s we’re naming this AI IDE. One of the team has told, “No, you’re building a bicycle. Here’s all the same brief, but it’s a bicycle. And then another team, you’re building a…” I don’t know, lap. I don’t know, something non-technical essentially, right?
Polarization Is a Good Sign
David Placek: Yes.
Does .com Still Matter?
Lenny Rachitsky: Like, a cup. Say more about that because that is amazing because. And you’re finding that most of the best names come from the groups that aren’t… Let’s name an amazing AI IDE.
The Core Advice
David Placek: This is a good example. So in technology, there are some things that if someone hands you a new phone and you look at it and it’s tangible and it’s got a shape and color, things like that, easier to name. But the name of Windsurf, before it was Windsurf, was Codium. So, it’s all about a type of code or a process for coding. That’s intangible. And even though we do an awful lot of technology work, it is still hard for us to really get ahold of what that is. So our rule here is if there’s something that is intangible like that, we have to make it tangible. And sometimes we do that not by giving a team, sometimes it’s an individual, the assignment to create ideas for the brand itself, but to just dive into a particular context.
And in this case with Windsurf, this is about flow about giving people that are coding something much more of a flow process, a smoother process, a more dynamic process. So in that case, One team was just given the task of we want to look at a list of all the things that can communicate either in a real word like flow or metaphorically or in a sport about that kind of dynamics. That kind of movement. And there was Windsurf sitting on a list. I mean, sometimes, this is really just that simple. Of course, you have to have the right framework and you have to give the right directions to someone. And Windsurf, for us and particularly for me, it checks all the boxes. It’s a wonderful image, it’s an experience. Literally, a physical experience. It’s a compound, right? Two words put together. We know from the research we’ve invested in that compounds like Powerbook or Facebook are multipliers of associations because there’s wind and there’s circles around that, and then there’s surf images around that. So 1 + 1 = 3, right?
It’s interesting that when we present compounds to clients, we often get the comment, “Well, it’s a little bit long and it’s a compound. I’d rather have a shorter single word.” And then that’s why we actually did research on just how effective our compounds so we could pass that information along. We passed that along to the team at that time. Codium, by the way, could not have been a more intelligent, nicer, more respectful team that we’ve worked with. I’m so glad for their success. But we explained to them about the multiplier effect of compounds. We showed them imagery that they could use. I mean, it’s simple to execute on something like that. And so, that’s how that came about. I’ll stop there and see if you need more information or not.
Quick Fire Questions
Lenny Rachitsky: Let me actually follow this through real quick. It’s going to be kind of a tangent. You guys have been working with AI companies more and more recently, which is so interesting. What’s different about naming AI products from traditional products, not AI, I guess?
David Placek: First off, we are working mostly with engineers, and engineers who haven’t delved into the world of creativity and necessarily marketing. And that’s their strength. And what we have to do is we have to balance their strength with our strength. So there’s a little bit of a challenge there, but I think we deal pretty well with that. Secondly, this is the fastest moving progressing category I have ever experienced. And I have that perspective, right? I went through the early days of the internet and the World Wide Web, and that was moving pretty fast. But the internet compared to this looks like a daycare school or something like that. We’re challenged by just keeping up with developments. Third thing, and this is the creative challenge here, is that engineers come to us wanting more sophisticated names where they are likely to end up with another Codium or an Anduril or an Anthropic.
And when we saw this trend of that AI is going to take off, and it was an intuitive feeling on my part. I could have been wrong. I said, “Let’s find out what’s going on here.” So both, not only who’s developing the products, but how do people think about AI? And we did a series of research. I probably invested $20,000 or so. And we interviewed consumers in Europe, South Korea, just picked out one country in Asia, and in America, and developers in those three. And they really have different views. Developers are all totally positive on it. They see the future, they see a big future, not too concerned, some are, but most aren’t. Consumers are skeptical, worried about it, worried about their jobs, see the hope in it, those types of things, but haven’t got the handle on it.
So Codium is an example where we said, “We think what you’re doing needs to be much more tangible, and something that people can grab onto, and much more natural as opposed to a Codium.” And they listened to us. Very simple as that. And in this case, we were right. And by the way also, I have to say, there’s some luck to this. Windsurf happened to be available and they sought right away, not exactly right away but it took about a week going back and forth to select it. So, let me stop there and see if that answers your question.
Recent Favorite Shows and Movies
Lenny Rachitsky: Absolutely. And it feels like most AI companies end up having a different name for their product than their company. I’ve noticed this funny trend cursor was any sphere bold with stack is StackBlitz, Windsurf is Codium. Basically, everyone.
When does it make sense to change your name? Windsurf just officially changed their entire company name to Windsurf from Codium. It was just a product. So, let me just ask you that. When does it make sense? It feels like a huge deal and a very challenging thing to do.
Recently Discovered Favorite Products
David Placek: It is challenging. And the larger you are and the more customer base you have, it becomes a significant project. So the first thing is you have to make an argument that it’s worth the change. That we’re going to be better off by changing our name. So, there’s a couple situations where you want to change your name. First one is let’s focus first on startups. Startups get going early, they get into Y Combinator or something like that, they’re raising money. And they just need a name. And although they know what they’re doing, and that may change by 10 or 15 degrees, it’s almost like, “We just got to have a name.” And that is the absolute expression I hear from when a startup calls and says, “We want to change your name. We started off a year and a half ago. We just needed a name for the documents, and so we chose X.” And it’s not a very good name. So, that’s example number one.
Number two is the company actually has pivoted. And so, the name that they have no longer really reflects who they are or who they’re becoming, and which makes that name ineffective. And the third is that a company has merged and it is time now to create a new start and reflect to the marketplace that we’re… We’re new now, maybe bigger, but certainly we have more capabilities and we want you to know about it. And because of that, we’re changing our to blank, which reflects those capabilities at some level.
Lenny Rachitsky: I’m excited to have Andrew Luo joining us today. Andrew is CEO of OneSchema, one of our longtime podcast sponsors. Welcome, Andrew.
Andrew Luo: Thanks for having me, Lenny. Great to be here.
Lenny Rachitsky: So, what is new with OneSchema? I know that you work with some of my favorite companies like Ramp and Vanta and Watershed. I heard you guys launched a new data intake product that automates the hours of manual work that teams spent importing, and mapping, and integrating CSV in Excel files.
Andrew Luo: Yes. So, we just launched the 2.0 of OneSchema FileFeeds. We’ve rebuilt it from the ground up with AI. We saw so many customers coming to us with teams of data engineers that struggled with the manual work required to clean messy spreadsheets. FileFeeds 2.0 allows non-technical teams to automate the process of transforming CSV in Excel files with just a simple prompt. We support all of the trickiest file integrations, SFTP, S3, and even email.
Lenny Rachitsky: I can tell you that if my team had to build integrations like this, how nice would it be to take this off our roadmap and instead use something like OneSchema.
Andrew Luo: Absolutely, Lenny. We’ve heard so many horror stories of outages from even just a single bad record in transactions, employee files, purchase orders, you name it. Debugging these issues is often like finding a needle in a haystack. OneSchema stops any bad data from entering your system and automatically validates your files, generating error reports with the exact issues in all bad files.
Lenny Rachitsky: I know that importing incorrect data can cause all kinds of pain for your customers and quickly lose their trust. Andrew, thank you so much for joining me. If you want to learn more, head on over to oneschema.co, That’s oneschema.co.
I want to come back to this linguist piece, which I know is really unique to the way you guys operate, and it’s so interesting. So you employed, you’ve said, over 250 linguists over the course of your business career. This linguist step, the way you described it is they’re not coming up with names, they’re more kind of like a filter for, “Here’s all the names we’ve come up with. Here’s the ones that are good linguistically.” Is that right? Or is that team also suggesting names?
My Life Motto
David Placek: Yeah. Some of the people there, depending on the assignment, will actually help us create names, for sure. And so, we have linguists here. And in the network, we have linguists. And those linguists are contracts to us, not full-time employees. So, there’s a little bit of both. But the preponderance of their work in our linguistic network is to evaluate names. Not only just does it mean something negative or positive, but are there cultural implications to it? Political implications? Or even things that a natural disaster that would’ve happened somewhere that no one here would know about. Even if we had, if.
This was in Italy, and there was a bridge or a flood that killed a lot of people. Someone that speaks Italian very well here, say at Berkeley University, but has lived here for 20 years, wouldn’t know about that. And we don’t want anything linguistically that would slow our clients down. And so, that’s why we’ve invested in building this network. We have a woman that runs the network for it. So, it’s not an insignificant facet of our business that we have to run and manage.
Lenny Rachitsky: Is there a name you love that didn’t pass the linguistic filter, that ended up being like, “Oh, shit. That’s a really bad name in this culture”?
Most Admired Brand Names
David Placek: It happens frequently where we will find something that isn’t really terrible but it’s worrisome to us. It’s interesting cultures like Australian or people in Australia, they have a lot of interesting expressions. And so, we do find things that this sounds like it’s a certain kind of shrimp and things like that, and we eliminate those things. And then we find things that have sort of sexual connotations, we eliminate those.
I would say it happens every third or fourth project we’ll find something that we will eliminate and never show the client.
Lenny Rachitsky: And something you love and you’re like, “Okay, I guess we can show that one”?
David Placek: That’s true. That happens. It does.
Lenny Rachitsky: You also said this really interesting thing about how every letter of the alphabet has a vibrance in an experience. Can you give a few examples of that? I know you’re not the person doing that work specifically, but just what are some letter feelings?
David Placek: The work is from the linguist, but at this point, I’m pretty adept in it. So, let’s look at… I’ll start with the letter V because it is so illustrative of what this is about. V, from our research that we’ve done, is the most alive and vibrant sound in the English alphabet. And that’s whether you were born in Rome or in Sausalito, California. So if you know that, if you know that as you go around the world, there are going to be some exceptions to it. It’s going to have that vibrancy. Look at Corvette. They probably didn’t know about V, but it’s a perfect name for a car that’s fast and has a big engine that roars. Think about Viagra, same idea. And there’s been surprises to us. B, the sound of the letter B is one of the most reliable sounds in the English alphabet. That was one of our rationales, by the way, for Blackberry. Because that’s another example of a client who thought we were… I mean, the founder actually said, “I thought the people at Lexicon were crazy,” when they presented Blackberry.
And we said, “Well, let’s stop and look at some of the assets here. First off, black color’s technology. Yes, not everybody knows the word berry, but we have those two Bs.” We talked about the nature of a compound. And all of a sudden, people at least lean forward to consider it as opposed to rejecting it too fast. So, those are just two examples. I mentioned Z in Azure, that’s noisy letter. X is fast and crisp as a sound. And of course, there’s semantic value to all of these letters, too. X is about innovation from aircraft to computers. And so, you have to look at the semantics of it and the sound symbol of it.
Lenny Rachitsky: This is so fascinating. I could listen to this stuff all day. Just thinking about Vercel with the V, that very aligns with what they’re trying to do. Just very strong, opinionated way of working. And Guillermo, he feels like a V person.
David Placek: He is. And there’s an example of a group that had a lot of confidence, and what their product is is very innovative. And so, we had permission there to create something new because Vercel is a coin solution., right? But notice that we put some very simple, easy to process things together there. Or ver, in this case. So we have in vino veritas, truth in wine, things like that. You have verde, green. So, very familiar. And then their cel, like accelerate, something which is really what they do. They accelerate a client’s performance. So, that was a relatively easy name for us to present and we were excited about for them to grasp.
By the way, that’s known as processing fluency, which is when you think about how the brain processes information. We’re told by a number of cognitive science that our brains are a little bit on the lazy side. We don’t like complex things. And so, we really strive to make all of our solutions relatively easy for the brain to process. So it wants, it leans in towards them as opposed to, “I’m too busy. I’m walking past that.” Names that are complicated, it’s a liability. And we really avoid that. But Vercel, perfect fluency.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, let’s go back, actually, to the three steps. So we covered two, and it took us on a long tangent to dive into a lot of the stuff you shared with the second step, which you call invent. So, it’s essentially the three steps are… Was it create? What would you call it? The step?
David Placek: Yeah, it’s identify. Invent.
Lenny Rachitsky: Identify.
David Placek: And I use the word invent with intention because it’s more than creative. And then the final thing is implement. Now for us, we’re not a design firm. We’re really focused on brand names and the nomenclature that supports the name. But for us, implement is helping the client team, if they choose, for us to help them with the presentations as it goes up the chain. To help them write a longer rationale for why these names, if they’re presenting three names to the president of their company or the CMO, why these names make a lot of sense, and to help them develop what we call prototypes. So we’ll put the name on a baseball cap, on a T-shirt. We’ll put the name in a mock-up ad in the Wall Street Journal. Something’s very positive. Because of Procter & Gamble’s new blank product. P&G shares, they gain 10% this year. So that executives can see that the lift that that name can have. That’s our implementation phase for them.
And we also do consumer research or customer research at that stage, and we do that probably about 50% of the time on our projects where we’re going out and we’re really talking to their customers, and putting the names in a series of drills. Drills that make them not the marketing person for the day, but we’re really making these customers feel that this is a new brand. And then, we’re asking about expectations. We’re seeing how these names fire their imagination. And that’s the most important thing in research, not is the name popular, are they comfortable with it, does it fit to concept. If you’re asking people is this fit to concept, you are inevitably always going to get a descriptive name.
Lenny Rachitsky: You make such a good point about how you need to arm the people working with you with ammo to win over other folks internally. Because if the person working with you is on board and the name is bold and not an obvious winner, I could see it being important to be like, “Here’s what you should all show them to help them see the story, and the mock-ups, and all of that.”
David Placek: Yes. And what’s really important is to help their management see this in the context of the marketplace and their customers. This is a very human thing, but people want their boss to be happy. They want to be okay with their boss. And so they’re thinking about, “I don’t know if my boss would like this.” He’s more conservative or she’s more conservative. We try in a very diplomatic way to say, “This has nothing, really, in the end to do with your boss. It has to do with the marketplace.”
Well, that’s easy for me to say because I’m not working at a P&G or an Intel, but we really try to give that advice for it because it is about being successful in the marketplace. And so first of all, we try to separate the clients that we work with. We really want to work with clients that play to win, that want to win, not just want to not lose in a marketplace. And so, we try to encourage our direct clients to lead the process to really say, if a manager or a CMO or a president says, “Look, we’re the team that’s going to execute on this and we believe in this. We can make this work,” they usually rally around it. They usually do. But if you’re just taking names up to a manager and saying, “What do you think?” There’s a different outcome offered.
So, we like to be in that implementation phase because we have so much experience. And usually, credibility with people.
Lenny Rachitsky: And you said that you come up with 3 to 4,000 names. That’s the top of the funnel?
David Placek: Yeah. And just to clarify that, it’s ideas, directions. It’s not-
Lenny Rachitsky: Complete ready-to-ship names.
David Placek: Yeah, not ready-to-ship names at all.
Lenny Rachitsky: Got it.
David Placek: This is a very inefficient process and a little chaotic. So in that list of 3,000 names is probably 250 potential diamonds that have to be fractured and examined.
Lenny Rachitsky: I really want to see just a documentary of this process at some point. This is the closer we’re going to get for now, but this is so interesting.
I want to ask about how you would approach this if you’re just a startup that doesn’t have the time or resource to do this. But before I do that, is there anything else around the process that you guys go through with clients that you think is important to share or they think might surprise people?
David Placek: I think we’ve covered it. I do.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, great. Awesome. Okay, so most people listening to this, there’s a lot of founders, a lot of PMs on product teams. They’re working on a new feature, they’re about to launch a product, they got accepted into YC and they’re about to launch a product. Then they have, I don’t know, let’s say they have a couple of weeks. We’ve got to come up with a name. What should they do?
David Placek: So the first thing I do is to say, okay, let’s forget about developing the name for right now. And I will have them, and I think this is a good exercise for anybody. We do it here internally when we think about our business. So I say, just… Because most of this now, because of COVID, is on video. And I will say, “Just draw a shape of a diamond on a piece of paper in front of you.” And I said, “On the top of that diamond, put the word win. How do you define winning is really it?” I said, “Now on that other next corner of the diamond, what do you have to win? Write that down. On the bottom, what do you need to win? And then on that final angle on the left-hand side, what do you have to say to win?” Then I said, “Now, let’s go all the way to that final thing of what do you have to say to win.”
And that’s where you just get people thinking about, “Well, what we really have here is… And we’re better than this.” And then I’ll just say, “Okay. Now, what you want to take that this really should be about experience and behavior. How do you want to behave in the marketplace? How do you want the marketplace to behave towards you? And what kind of experience are you creating?” And then they’ll start talking a little bit. I’ll say, “Now, you just need to probe on that. You need to keep going. You need to look at metaphors because this is about experience.” And I’ll just give them some of our examples that we’ve talked about, “Blackberry, it says to the marketplace, they’re not like the other guys.” Think of something like Google versus Infoseek, right? Google is an experience. Google says, “I don’t know what these guys are going to do, but it’s not this practical mundane Infoseek.” And that’s what attracts people.
And so I’ll do a little coaching like that, and then that usually kind of sets them free. And they’re now thinking about it not as a word, which has maybe limited value, but as creating an experience which has the potential for unlimited value.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay. So, let me try to reflect this back for folks. So the advice is draw triangle. So, you’re coming up with a name. Draw triangle. At the top, win. At the bottom-left, was it how do you win?
David Placek: Yeah. So, the diamond is two triangles.
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, diamond. Okay, I see. I have triangle in my mind.
David Placek: I got you.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, got it. Diamond. Great.
David Placek: And so on that next angle there on the right side is, what do you have to win already? Right? Because they wouldn’t be either in a Y Combinator or getting some seed money if they didn’t have something to win. And often, people, startups don’t appreciate how much they actually do have to win because they’re so busy and so stressed on what they’re doing. And then, what do they need to win? And then finally, what do you need to say? And then back up to defining what is winning to us? Which, by the way, we start with that question usually on an assignment that we’ve been awarded. And if we’re in a room with five people, all five people have a different definition of what… Their definition of that company winning. And that’s good to sort that out because we can move down different avenues from a creative standpoint.
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s just make sure people have these phrases because this is awesome. And I imagine many people are going to be taking notes and like, “Cool. I’m going to do this.” I hope so say the four points of the diamond again just so folks can write it all down.
David Placek: At the top of the diamond is just the word win, and underneath that is how do we define winning for us as a company. And that can start off being simple, like we want to be the dominant player here. But you really have to work at that. What does that really mean, right? The second on that right-hand tip there of the diamond is what do we have to win? What are we doing now that makes us a winner? Then we go down to the bottom of the diamond, and it’s what do we need to win? There could be technical things there. People talk about talent and resources. Often there, they’ll say, “We need a good name.” We always correct that. It’s not the good name, it’s the right name.
And then finally is what do we need to say? And that’s where I say, that’s where you want to spend some time in really thinking about all the things you need to say, that you can say or you would even like to say, which maybe right now you can’t say. But you want to a name that actually is going to have the flexibility as to when you can say that, it still works. And that gets them into behavior and experience. And that usually launches a really a good discussion with founders internally.
Lenny Rachitsky: When you say you have to win though, what you’re thinking about there is what is it that you have that will help you win? And then what is it you need to have this win?
David Placek: Yes, that’s right. And all companies are in that same situation. They have a bunch of stuff, but they need… A P&G might say, “We need a good distributor.”
“Okay. All right, we’ll put that on the list.”
And then you might say, “Well, we need in…” When it gets to what do we have to say, we have to say the right things so that a distributor is interested in us. And then you go down an avenue there. Well, what is that? And if you work at it, this is not a one-hour exercise, it may be an exercise repeated over the next 4 or 5 days.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay. So, you have this diamond. And then the idea is just sit and put names down in a Google Doc, let’s say.
David Placek: Yeah. And then you start. But there is this… And maybe, it’s naivete. I guess, that’s probably the best word for this is that, because I do hear this all of the time. “Hey, we’ve worked at this, we got a list of 200 names, but we don’t think there’s something there.”
And I’ll say, “Well, 200 names is not enough. Get to 1,000, 1,500 names and directions. Don’t evaluate them. Just generate names, and directions, and ideas, and then have a meeting. And don’t evaluate but speculate.” What could we do with this name? What’s the potential here? There’s a lot of overevaluation in our industry. It makes sense. We survive as humans because we figure out what’s wrong with this picture. If I want to cross the street, is it safe to cross the street? What’s going on? Those kinds of things. You have to counter that. You have to say, “Let’s just suspend judgment for a while. And let’s do an exercise here where we take these 10 names that we think might work and what are we going to do with it.” Because it’s how you execute.
Going back to windsurf, as we showed them pictures of people windsurfing and waves and things, if they said, “Ah, that just doesn’t work for us at all. I’m very uncomfortable with.” Well, then it’s not their name. But they leaned into it, “Okay, I can see this. It’s easy for us to execute. It’s dynamic, it’s different.” So, that’s why we build these prototypes for people. And that’s what… I think the best advice I can give to whether it’s a startup or someone starting a new cookie company, is it’s not just a list of 200 names. It’s 10 or 15 lists of 200 names. And it’s thinking about what do we have to say here? What behavior? How do we want people to feel in the marketplace about us? I imagine with Google, people felt relief that it wasn’t a descriptive name. That there was something new out there in the marketplace.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. Infoseek, that’s such a descriptive name now that I think about it.
David Placek: Yes.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, so one more question along these lines. So say, you have a list of let’s say 2,000 or 1,000 names. There’s this tension between choosing something… Like, as a person that is doing them themselves. Your advice is choose something bold, not something descriptive. You won’t know it when you see it. Very hard to do, obviously, when you’re doing it by yourself. And you just advise for not losing sight of that piece. Just throwing out things that feel too scary, finding a name that’s actually bold as you suggest.
David Placek: First off, we disappear… Human psychology, humans only pay attention to what is new or what is different, I should say. So if you’re looking at shoes and they’re all black, black, black, black, and then the next pair of shoes is red, that’s the first thing you focus on. And so, that usually gives people permission. They’ll say, “Okay, I get that.” So, look for what is really different between the names that you have on your list, but also what’s different from what’s out in the marketplace. Then you get a client like Microsoft saying, “Azure is different. There’s going to be a lot of cloud stuff and…” There’s a relevant point there, Azure is blue. And so, there’s a slight logical connection that I think gave them more permission to move forward with it, frankly. But listen, this is not an easy task. I mean, that’s why we’re in this business, and why I felt we should be specialized because if you start doing design and/or advertising or other things, you can’t have the intellectual engine.
You can’t acquire the intellectual engine that we have. So I know it’s difficult, but it can be done, and you just have to give yourself some time. But stop evaluating. Suspend judgment and speculate. That’s my number one advice to people trying to do this on their own. Now, how can you get help? You can talk to your employees, but it’s not so much, “What do you think of this name?” It’s, “What do you think this name could do for us?” That’s a much better question. If you go out and talk to friends who don’t work for your company, there’s a fun drill that I suggest. I said, “Listen, go out to them and say…” They’ll know what you’re doing. And say, “You know what? We just have a new competitor and their name is blank. What do you think about that?”
What happens there is you’re not asking them to give you an opinion to evaluate a name. You’re asking them then what does that name do for you? The information you’re getting is that name, they’re telling you what that name does for them, how it helps them to imagine, which is a fundamental role of any name. Slight tangent, but I’m going to go to our kind of research. We do mostly quantitative research now, but for years, we did qualitative work. And we still do. But what we found in, we were always looking for the…
I’ll set it this way. We were always looking for this answer from consumers. If a consumer said, “I don’t really know much about that new product, but I know that they’re not like the other guys.” That’s when we knew we had a good name because they were… Now what happened there? I mean, the technical term that we use is that name will create a predisposition to consider this product because they’re not like the other guys, as opposed to, “I already have something like that. I’m busy. I don’t need another one of those things. I need something new and different, and hopefully better.”
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s awesome. That’s a good reminder. There’s a quote that I found of yours that’s exactly along these lines, “If your team is comfortable with the name, chances are you don’t have the name yet.”
David Placek: Yes. And by the way, the opposite of that is we look for polarization. We look for tension in a team about arguing about these things, because we think that polarization is a sign of strength in the word. And interesting story, the person who taught me that, honestly, was Andy Grove over the Pentium name, because… And I learned a lot from him. I always say this, I just was very fortunate to work with him on Pentium, and Xeon, and a few other things. But when we went to an executive committee to present Pentium… And by the way, internally, one of the names that… And makes sense here, descriptive, bunch of engineers, ProChip. “Hey, it’s professional, it’s premium, and it’s chipped. So, it should be Prochip.” So Andy had me give a presentation about the strengths of this thing, and he said, “Now, let me tell you why I think this is the right name.”
He said, “Because I see the polarization here in it amongst people. There’s this ProChip over here, there’s the Pentium thing.” He said, “That tells me there’s energy for Pentium here.” And he said, “That’s why I think we should go with it.” And I’ve never forgotten that. And so, we do look for that. And when we tell that story, people say, “You’re right. There is… I mean, we are arguing about this, and there is an intensity with the name.” And that’s what you want. You don’t want to go out in the marketplace, into this very competitive marketplace, regardless of the category, with something that doesn’t have a level of boldness or intensity.
Lenny Rachitsky: That was an amazing story. Just again, so kind of a tip here is if half of your team or, I don’t know, some percent of your team hates it, some percent of your team loves it, that’s a good sign.
David Placek: Yeah, it is. It is. Look for that polarization. That’s what we look for.
Lenny Rachitsky: I also love this tip of asking people if, “Hey, our competitor just launched. They’re called Windsurf.” How your team reacts? If they’re just like, “Oh, wow, that’s a great name. I’m interested in that product.” That’s what you want to look for?
David Placek: Yes, exactly.
Lenny Rachitsky: How important is the .com for the name you come up with? I imagine it’s really hard to get these days. Just what do you think about domain name when you think about naming?
David Placek: I am so glad you asked this question because at this point, it doesn’t really matter at all. The .com or URL address has become an area code. And whether you’re in 415 or 615, it doesn’t really matter to people. And now with AI, SEO is going to be less important. And so, I just think the principle in play here is you got to get the right name first. And then if you can get the .com, sure, go ahead. But if you can’t, there’s ways around that. You can put a prefix in front of it or a little word in front of it or after it, or you go to .ai or something like that. But the principle in play is let’s get the right name first.
For those who really… And there are people who really get hung up on the .com, they tend to older by, the way. And have, in their mind, sort of the hotness of the internet and having a .com, which did make a difference 25 years ago. But it’s 25 years now or 30, right? The good news is because they’re less valuable, you can typically buy a URL if you negotiate the right way and have time for 15, 20, 25, 30,000 into market.”
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. That’s reassuring. I imagine many founders are just like, “God dammit, there’s no names available anymore.” Let me zoom out and just ask you this question as a, maybe, a closing thought to our conversation.
Say you were just in an elevator ride with someone, and I’m sure this happens to you of just like, “Hey, David, I got to come up with that name. What’s your biggest tip for coming up with a great name?” What would your answer be?
David Placek: I’d go back to forget about the word, think about behavior and experience. And then the second thing from just a creative help, I’m a big believer in synchronicity. And we try to force synchronicity here, and I’ll give you a couple examples of that. But this idea of connecting dots, two unrelated ideas together. And so I’ll say, “Look, if someone says we make sailboats and I’m trying to…” I’m here in Sausalito. I guess, that’s why I thought about that. And I am trying to create a new name for my company that builds sailboats.
I would say forget about sailboats. I would go and pick out some magazines about hunting or flying magazines. And I would just look through those, get a notepad out, and put out words that you like. Things, expressions that you like. And then that synchronicity, I said, “I would bet you $5 that out of those two magazines, you will get a word that you never would’ve thought of, but somehow it would relate to sailing.”
Lenny Rachitsky: That connects very much to your story of how you have these different teams, and the teams that end up coming up with a winning name are the ones thinking about a very different version of that product.
David Placek: Yes.
Lenny Rachitsky: So interesting. Okay. David, this was everything I was hoping it’d be. I feel like we’re going to help so many people. Is there anything that we haven’t covered or that you want to leave listeners with as a final nugget or piece of advice or story before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
David Placek: I’m going to emphasize one point, I think, which is that I really would like the listeners to really begin to think about how valuable a brand name can be. That you’re not just looking for a word, you’re looking for this experience. And if you get it right, not just a good name but the right name, the value is almost unlimited. And so give yourself some time, give yourself a budget, give yourself the right resources to do that. Second thing is we try to really be helpful here, and so I am always happy to talk to people about where they are in a process and if we can help, or just give them a little bit of advice. And we schedule, we call them office hours here. We’re judicious about it, but we are open to that. It’s just playing a long-term game, so I’d like to leave that with the viewers also.
Lenny Rachitsky: We’re about to book out your office hours. I love that offer. I think a lot of people are going to take advantage of that. That is super cool.
David, with that, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. I’ve got five questions for you. Are you ready?
David Placek: Yes, I’m ready.
Lenny Rachitsky: There we go. What are 2 or 3 books that you find yourself recommending most to other people?
David Placek: There’s a book called Resilience, which was written by a former Navy SEAL that… And it’s not about combat, it’s just a tiny bit about being a SEAL. But it is about overcoming things and it’s about tenacity. And I think everybody in the world, we all have challenges and things. And I do recommend that to people.
Second book is Andrew Roberts latest book on Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill is, really, one of my heroes. He was one of the most unusual, provocative statesmen/politicians of the 20th century. And here’s another person that talked about tenacity, and ups and downs, and stick with it. And so, I do like to recommend that. Some people just tipped their head and said, “Ah, I don’t know.” It seems like maybe a boring book, but those are two books that I [inaudible 01:17:02].
Lenny Rachitsky: Who would ever say that Churchill’s story is boring? That’s absurd.
David Placek: I think so. I agree. I agree It’s absurd, yes.
Lenny Rachitsky: He’s so fascinating. There’s a recent documentary, I think, that really showed me the character. Incredible.
Okay. What’s a recent movie or TV show you’ve really enjoyed?
David Placek: For me, it’s the Yellowstone series. We’re very fortunate as a family, we have some property in Montana. And-
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, wow. You’re living the life.
David Placek: Yeah, very… Listen, I can’t tell you how fortunate I am. And I bought this property 28 years ago, so it was a lot cheaper then.
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow.
David Placek: In a snowstorm, and it just felt right. But I think particularly the 1883, the precursor to Yellowstone.
Lenny Rachitsky: I was going to ask if you saw that because that was incredible.
David Placek: Yes. And then the after one, 1923, which is the post-war. 1883 really gives people a sense of what it took by those early Americans to build a life in a place like… A beautiful place but a hard, tough place like Montana. And it’s just phenomenal. The person producing and writing those things is incredibly talented. Taylor Sheridan, I think, is his name.
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that in the story, Montana was the easy route almost from the journey they want on.
David Placek: That’s right. It’s very, very true, yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, man. Yeah, you almost don’t even need to watch Yellowstone. Just starting with 1883 totally works.
David Placek: Yeah. In fact, I recommend people. I say there’s three. But if you really want the truth about the American West, it’s 1883.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. I suggested that on this podcast a bunch, actually. So, I love that. That’s where you went.
Next question, do you have a favorite product that you have recently discovered that you really love? Maybe one you named, maybe not.
David Placek: I didn’t name it, although it’s got a very good name to it. Our whole family, I have two daughters and my wife, we’re all fly fishermen, and last summer I really… I bought this for myself, but I gave it to my wife. It was one of those things that was present for her, but I knew I was going to use it more. And it’s a Hardy. It’s an old British fly rod, but it’s a beautiful rod. It’s just perfect for the big rivers of Montana. So, that’s my favorite purchase.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s the first fly-fishing rod of the podcast. Excellent choice.
Next question, do you have a favorite life motto that you often find yourself coming back to, sharing with friends or family?
David Placek: I do. And it’s a little longer, so I wrote it. I have it written here somewhere, but it’s the quote from T.E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, here. And if I can find it, I should be. I think it’s a wonderful quote, so I think hopefully your viewers will like this. Here’s what he said. He said that, “All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they may act on their dreams with open eyes to make them possible.”
I read that years ago and it just hit me pretty hard, so yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky: That is an amazing quote. It makes me think about the quote about the man in the arena.
David Placek: Yes. Yeah, it’s same idea. It’s just a little different. And I also think Lawrence of Arabia is a fascinating person, what he did. So, inspiring in some ways.
Lenny Rachitsky: An amazing movie.
Okay, final question. Let me just try this. Is there a name that you didn’t name that you’re just like, “Wow, that was an amazing name. I wish I had come up with that name”?
David Placek: I’ll tell you there is one name, and it’s DreamWorks. I think it’s a wonderful name, and it’s somewhat ironic that the entertainment industry in general has pretty mundane names. You have all of these talented people. And yet when you look at the names of production studios, movie houses, Comcast, things like that, it’s very mundane. But here’s DreamWorks, just like Sonos, check all the boxes. Compound dream. You expect something great from DreamWorks. They’ve created an experience, the experience of dreaming in a movie. I think it’s a wonderful name. I wish I’d done it.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s such a cool answer. David, thank you so much for doing this. This was incredible. I learned a ton as I imagined. I feel like a lot of people are going to have a much easier time thinking about approaching this topic.
David Placek: Well, I certainly hope so. I do. It’s been very, very enjoyable, very thoughtful, and I have nothing but or respect for the way you do this and the talent that you have. So, very fortunate that we’ve come together. And we live in the same place, so maybe we can get together for a cup of coffee or something.
Lenny Rachitsky: We do. Northern California for the win. Thank you so much for being here.
David Placek: You’re very welcome.
Lenny Rachitsky: Bye everyone.
David Placek: Take care.
Lenny Rachitsky: Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Reformatted by reformat_english_direct.py
命名专家分享打造 Azure、Vercel、Windsurf、Sonos、Blackberry 和 Impossible Burger 等十亿美元品牌名背后的流程 | David Placek(Lexicon Branding)
访谈实录
品牌名的力量
David Placek: 你的品牌名,没有什么比这个名字被使用得更频繁、更持久的了。设计会变,宣传语会变,产品会变,但那个名字始终都在。
Lenny Rachitsky: 有没有一个你起的名字,你不得不拼命争取,而客户却非常讨厌?
David Placek: 当我们提出 Sonos 这个名字时,它被否决了,因为它不够有娱乐感。我们就此进行了争论,因为我说:“这是从外部看进去,我并不认为你们是一家娱乐公司。” 人总是喜欢待在舒适区。我们工作的一部分,就是帮助人们建立信心,敢于走得更远,接受不舒服。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我找到了你说过的一句话:“如果你的团队对这个名字感到舒服,很可能你还没有找到那个名字。”
David Placek: 我们寻找两极化反应。我们寻找团队在争论这些问题时的张力。两极化是这个词语具有力量的标志。大多数客户来做命名项目时,绝对满怀信心地认为他们一看到就会认出那个名字来,而事实是,这几乎永远不会发生。
Lenny Rachitsky: 大多数听众是创始人,还有很多产品团队的产品经理。假设他们有几周时间,需要想出一个名字。他们应该怎么做?
本期嘉宾:David Placek
Lenny Rachitsky: 今天的嘉宾是 David Placek。David 是 Lexicon Branding 的创始人,这家公司开创了品牌命名这一领域,发明了一些你可能听说过的名字,包括 Powerbook、Pentium、Blackberry、Swiffer、Impossible Burger,还有 Vercel、Windsurf、CapCut 和 Azure。在这次对话中,David 坦诚地分享了他和团队寻找出色名字的具体流程,包括一个你和团队可以在几周内完成的简单练习,帮助你们找到合适的名字。我们还聊了为什么一个出色的名字值得你花时间去做,为什么你看到好名字时不一定能认出来,以及为什么你需要先对名字感到不舒服。另外,为什么大型团队头脑风暴从来不会产生出色的名字。Pentium、Sonos、Vercel、Windsurf 等名字背后的故事。还有关于字母表中每个字母的感觉和能量的有趣见解,以及更多内容。
[广告段落已跳过]
正式对话
Lenny Rachitsky: David,非常感谢你的到来,欢迎来到播客。
David Placek: 谢谢。我对今天很期待,期待这次对话。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我也是。这其实是我最喜欢的那种对话,因为这个话题完全不在我的专业领域之内,我知道自己会学到很多东西。而且,这是每个创始人和产品构建者在某个阶段都不得不考虑的事情,而他们完全不知道自己在做什么。然后,名字就变成了他们身份的核心,这几乎是他们说得最多的一个词。我觉得自己从未听过关于如何做好这件事的建议。所以,我对这次对话非常期待。
我直接进入正题。这个问题就是:有没有一个你和你的团队想出来的名字,你不得不拼命争取,客户非常讨厌,而你最终赢了,现在这个名字显然是一个所有人都喜爱的出色名字?
Sonos 的命名故事
David Placek: 我喜欢讲的故事是 Sonos 的故事。首先,这是一个很棒的客户团队,我和所有创始人都合作过。但当时,他们执意要一个能让他们置身于娱乐行业的品牌名。所以当我们提出 Sonos 时——它有很多优秀的品质——它被否决了,因为它没有足够的情感,不够有娱乐感。我们就此争论起来,因为我说:“这是从外部看进去的视角,但我并不认为你们是一家娱乐公司。你们制造的是音箱,让娱乐内容通过这些设备流通。而 Sonos 是关于声音的。” 但它有一个特别的品质,叫做回文(palindrome),意思是你把它翻转过来,含义不变。在 Sonos 这个例子中,你甚至可以把它倒过来看,本质上还是一样的。
这让他们开始思考,但他们仍然在犹豫。我离开了在圣巴巴拉的那次会议,回来之后他们还在纠结。于是我坐上飞机——甚至没给他们开账单——再次飞到圣巴巴拉,再次与他们见面,说:“我真心相信这个名字,我认为它适合你们。” 到了某个时刻,其中一位创始人 Bob MacFarlane——他真是一位非常棒的客户——我能看出来他在思考,然后他说:“你知道吗?我们一直在为自己命名,而我们真正应该做的是为市场和客户命名。我认为 Sonos 就是正确的名字。” 我对此感觉非常好。后来他给我写了一张便条,讲述了我如何帮助他做到这一点,我们有时会在资质展示中使用它,因为那真是一封很美好的便条。
David Placek: 但 Sonos 这件事,我真的很庆幸自己当时有一股内在的动力,觉得”我必须再飞过去,为这个名字做最后的争取。” 顺便说一句,我并不经常这样做,但对 Sonos 我确实非常坚定。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢 Sonos,很喜欢这个名字,我家也有很多 Sonos 的产品。这种情况经常发生吗?客户说”不,这不是我们想要的名字,我们有更大的愿景,我们有完全不同的想法”,然后你再去说服他们?
David Placek: 这种事其实一直在发生。而且这某种程度上是双向的。大多数客户——这一点我可以理解——做命名项目时绝对相信、满怀信心地认为自己”一眼就能认出来”。但事实是,这几乎从来不会发生。今年我们应该会完成第 4,000 个项目。
有意思的是,我们会以一种非常礼貌的方式告诉客户:“你不会一眼就认出来的。” 但我知道他们并不相信我。甚至到了后来……你能看出他们在心里想:“你知道,他说得对。我真的需要好好想想这个名字,需要消化一下。” 其中一个原因是,客户之所以不太喜欢我们提出的那些更大胆、更有想象力的名字,是因为他们在寻找安全感。而这恰恰是你不应该做的事情。我们的工作之一,就是帮助客户建立信心,让他们敢于更大胆、更宏大,接受不适感。我常说一句话:“在市场上,舒适是没有力量的。“
客户”一眼认出”的迷思
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,刚才已经信息量很大了。关于”你不会一眼就认出来”这个观点——人们进来时都认为”一旦看到它,一切就会显而易见”。为什么这几乎从不会发生?是因为好名字必须是某种让人不舒服的东西吗?
David Placek: 这里面有很多心理学因素,讽刺的是,我在大学和研究生院从来没上过一节心理学课。但第一个要素是,人类确实倾向于待在舒适区。而舒适的一种机制就是:如果某样东西以前成功过,那我就会觉得可以批准它、选择它。这就是为什么像《哈利·波特》这样的电影,甚至杰克·伦敦的《野性的呼唤》这样的小说,会被拒绝那么多次。《哈利·波特》被拒绝了十六甚至十八次,杰克·伦敦那本书被拒绝的次数更多。你想想看,他在推销一本书,对方说:“你在说什么?你说一条狗变成了一匹狼?我从没听说过这种事。” 所以我们确实需要帮助人们认识到:“这不是关于过去,你实际上是在创造未来。” 我们会认真地对客户说,并反复强调:“你不是在创造一个名字,我们是在共同创造一种体验,我们会一起合作。”
我们的对话总是从这样的问题开始:“跟我们谈谈你们现在的行为方式,以及你们未来想怎样行事”,而不是”跟我说说你的定位、你的价值观、你的使命”。那种做法其实是一种旧思维,非常传统,在二三十年前确实管用。但现在的世界要复杂得多,高度互联,数字化了,那种方法已经无法创造出像 Sonos 这样的名字,或者我们今天可能会谈到的其他案例。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,我们接下来会聊到你们的完整流程,敬请期待。不过在此之前,你还能再分享一个故事来说明”大胆”这个理念吗?
Microsoft Azure 的命名故事
David Placek: 我来聊聊 Microsoft 的 Azure。微软来找我们的时候,基本上卡住了。微软——在很多时候,这其实也是他们的优点——很多东西并不需要命名,不需要商标,不需要品牌名,只需要描述性的名称。他们来找我们时,要求开发一个以 cloud 开头或结尾的名字。对他们来说这很合理,因为这是一个云服务。而我们的反应是:“如果这样做,你会淹没在 cloud 这个、cloud 那个的汪洋大海里。而微软在这里有一个真正的机会,可以脱颖而出,成为这个领域的领导者。” 于是就有了一段讨论:“好吧,我们可以看看那些,但我们还是想看到一些带 cloud 的名字。” 顺便说一句,这很容易做到。
Lenny Rachitsky: 经典。
David Placek: 所以我们就做了。在这个过程中,我们提出了 azure 这个词,它是”蓝色”的另一个说法。所以它和云之间是有联系的——蓝天白云之类——但我们真正展示这个名字时,依据的是它的语言学特质。它是一个声音特征鲜明的词,中间那个 Z 很有辨识度;它以 A 开头,以一种流畅的韵律收尾。所以我们一直致力于创造这种平衡感很强的名字。在一个竞争激烈、信息嘈杂的环境中,拥有一个由声音特征产生的强烈信号,是一件好事。
客户的反应不太好。其中一位说:“这简直是愚蠢的主意。” 就是这类评价。到了现在,做了这四十多年,这些话对我来说就像我奶奶会说的一样——像水从鸭子背上滑落,完全不往心里去。但我认为在后续的讨论中,他们开始逐渐接受这个名字。当然现在,Azure 大概是一个千亿级别的品牌了。但这个例子正说明了那种”我以前没见过这种东西,我对 cloud 很熟悉,cloud 就是它的本质,我们是在描述它”的心态。但那只是一种陈述。我在其中一次提案中就是这么说的——不是”认为”,我是确定的:“你在这里不想做陈述,你想开启一个故事。” Azure 在市场上的表现会和 Cloud Pro 完全不同——Cloud Pro 好像就是我们在另一组方案中按他们要求提交的名字之一。
好名字的力量
Lenny Rachitsky: 很高兴他们最终选了 Azure。让我实际问一个问题。我知道你有倾向性,但一个好名字到底有多重要?如果你的名字比对手好,但产品不如对方,这会带来很大的差异吗?你能不能分享一些内容,帮助人们理解一个好名字的力量?
David Placek: 我们来看看现实情况。你的品牌名——不管是产品名还是公司名——没有什么比它被使用得更频繁、使用时间更长的了。设计会变,信息传达会变,产品会变,但那个名字一直在那里。所以我喜欢谈一个概念,叫作累积优势(cumulative advantage)。随着时间的推移,人们购买越来越多的产品,看到它的频率越来越高,他们与那个品牌之间的纽带会变得越来越强。所以你希望这个名字能扎根在他们心中,具有独特性,因为独特性正是创造累积优势的关键。
第二点是我所说的非对称优势(asymmetric advantage)的概念。这个道理很直观,大多数客户在我们提出时也表示认同:即使在这个品牌还没发布之前,为什么不从一开始就在市场上占据一个优势呢?如果你使用描述性的名字,你就不会有优势。如果你叫 Cloud Pro,而市场上有十个其他的云服务,你就无法脱颖而出,也不一定能创造出那种累积优势。
所以这就是我认为好名字——准确地说是”做对了”的名字——如此重要的两个原因。我们也常说,我们的使命不是创造”好名字”,很多人都能做到这一点。我们的使命是为客户创造”对的名字”,因为对的名字确实能为你带来非对称优势和累积优势。而这一点,对我们来说,价值几乎是无限的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个回答非常好。你的意思本质上是——好名字不一定会决定你的成败,但它能给你一个优势。尤其在你刚起步的时候,你需要一切你能获得的优势。
David Placek: 没错。这可能稍微有点跑题,但我读过的最好的营销书籍之一,其实并不是一本营销书。如果你在大学里学过希腊语或古典学,可能读过它。它叫《弥罗斯对话录》(Melian Dialogues)。这是一段对话……听这个播客的人大概花25分钟就能读完。对话发生在雅典人和弥罗斯政府之间——雅典人决定他们需要那座岛屿。他们以非常客气的方式前去交涉:“我们想接管这座岛。一切都不会改变,你们会稍微交点税,但我们会保护你们。“雅典人在这之前已经把夺取那座岛的方方面面都想清楚了。所以等他们到达的时候,他们在战船、兵力以及其他各个方面都已经创造了非对称优势。
顺便说一下,这本书里没有提到任何关于营销、品牌策略之类的东西,但如果你读了它,你会发现营销本质上就是关于非对称优势的。那么,为什么不从一开始就带着优势起步呢?这就是一个名字的价值。
Lenny Rachitsky: 让我们深入聊聊你们实际的操作流程。我想念一段 Guillermo Rauch 分享的话——我问他和你们合作的体验时,他是这么说的。他是 Vercel 的 CEO 兼联合创始人,你们和他合作过。顺便说一下,我后面肯定想听听那个故事。他说:“在认识 David 之前,给东西命名的能力就像是个人魅力——你要么有,要么没有。看着他的团队把这件事提炼成一门科学,真的非常不可思议。”
那么请问,这门”科学”是什么样的?你们为一款产品或一家公司想出一个出色名字的过程中,具体有哪些步骤?
David Placek: Guillermo 人太好了。他是这个领域非常令人印象深刻的创新者,我们非常享受与他合作的过程。我们的流程是实实在在的。我把它分解为三个步骤。首先,我们要识别(identify),然后发明(invent),最后实施(implement)。就这三件事。这不是什么火箭科学,而是创造力与纪律性的结合,当然还需要有才华的人和相关经验。让我们逐一来看。在识别这个阶段,我们真正想从客户那里弄清楚的是——让我们谈谈行为。你现在是如何表现的,未来又想如何表现?行为是双向的。换句话说,市场对一个品牌——比如我们为 Guillermo 创造的 Vercel——有它的行为方式,而品牌对市场也有自己的行为方式。这一点很重要,因为所有东西……建筑也是双向的。你看看一栋建筑,你会根据它的建筑风格做出不同的反应——面对一座寺庙、一座教堂,和面对一家 Holiday Inn,你的行为是完全不同的。所以我们聚焦于此。行为与我们所说的体验紧密相关——你希望这个品牌的体验是怎样的?
当我们在倾听这些内容时,我们开始思考名字的韵律。比如 Dasani 这个名字就很有韵律感,对吧?它有一种令人平静的感觉。所以我们从关于体验的讨论中开始提取各种要素。在第一个阶段中,我们还会研究竞争格局。我们把这叫做绘制景观(developing a landscape)。我们关注的是——他们用了哪些词……首先看品牌名是什么,然后看他们在这一领域使用了什么样的语言。因为我们必须与众不同。如果一个品牌名不能做到与众不同,你就输了。那你就只是在模仿。而模仿是一种自杀行为。这是一位……我想是大约50年前宝洁公司(P&G)总裁的名言。这就是第一阶段,它使我们能够创建我们所说的创意框架(creative framework)。我们在这里甚至不使用”目标”这个词,因为那会变得太理性。
实际上,框架对我们来说是一个隐喻——它是一扇窗,让我们的团队、我们的语言学家穿行其中。打开视野,这样我们拿回来的就不是一份狭隘的名字清单,而是有深度、有广度、带有不同体验和个性的名字。客户会在上面签字确认,然后我们就正式启动。于是我们进入了发明阶段。
发明阶段:创意团队与语言引擎
在发明阶段,我们主要做两件事。你可以把它看作我们流程的两个层次。我认为第二层可能是让我们在市场上相当独特的原因,那是我们投入了数百万美元研发的成果。第一件事,大家可能不会意外——我们与有创造力的人合作。不过有一点可能和大家想的相反——我们不使用大型头脑风暴会议。我以前用过。刚创办公司的时候,我用过自由职业者,也用过大型头脑风暴小组。后来在分析中我们发现,这种方式对我们来说效果并不好。实际上,好名字都来自员工和小团队。所以我们的流程调整为至少两到三个两人小团队。
在重要项目中,我们总是使用三个团队。每个团队拿到的简报不同。一个团队了解项目的全部信息,但其他团队不知道。如果我们是为微软做项目,第二个团队会以为他们在为苹果工作。当然,他们知道这是伪装的——我们不是在隐瞒什么。然后第三个团队,我们把它完全移出计算机领域,他们可能在为一辆自行车或一辆汽车命名。我们想做的,是打开创造力的宝库。当人们在处理一个他们知道并非真正任务的项目时,他们反而可以自由地犯各种错误。所以,我们大多数的好名字都出自第二或第三个团队,因为它们——
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇。
David Placek: 是的。我想这个流程在某个时候——我希望能写一篇好文章,甚至可能写一本书来专门讲它。但我认为这个流程对很多东西都适用。我知道它一定行得通。好了,那么我说的第二层是什么呢?我们在语言学(linguistics)和认知科学(cognitive science)领域做了重大投资,主要体现在两个方面。其一是构建专有知识。通过我们自己资助的研究,我们在语言学一个叫做”语音象征”(sound symbolism)的领域积累了大量认识。也就是说,26个字母各自的发音是什么,它们起到什么作用?它们如何唤起某种感受?事实表明,每一个字母都会发出一种信号,创造出某种振动——如果你愿意这么理解的话——或者某种体验。
这些年来一直有相关研究,但存在一些空白,我们决定去填补它们。多年来,我们与斯坦福大学语言学系保持着非常好的合作关系。我们从MIT、伯克利聘用了语言学家。我们这里有语言学实习项目。实际上,在为这次讨论做准备时,我刚算了这个数字:四十年来,我们共聘用了253位语言学家。其中大多数是博士,有些是合同制的,有些是正式员工。这是相当可观的智力资源。所以我们确实拥有一个我称之为”语言引擎”的体系。此外,我们现在还运营着一个网络——我昨天刚核对了这个数字——我们在76个国家有108位语言学家为我们提供帮助。其中一些人从事创意工作,另一些人则专门为我们做名字分析。所以现在,我们有了创意框架,也有了创意团队在推进这项工作。
创意流程的”工程层”
David Placek: 现在,我们会调用包含超过18,000个小型词汇单元的数据库,学术上叫做词素(morpheme)。所以我们也可以从声音的角度入手。“可靠”的声音是什么?“活力”的声音又是什么?拿 Sonos 来说,我们想要的是带有一定噪声感的东西。S 就是一个有噪声感的字母,Z 甚至 V 也是。于是你开始设定优先级,决定我们要用哪些字母。这些工作产生的成果,我们称之为”工程层”,它会向上流入创意团队。到了某个阶段,这就是多种要素的混合。
从创意到筛选
好了。那么这一切之后会怎样?通常在推进3到4周之后,我们可能会积累2到3,000个想法。我之所以说”想法”,是因为它们并不都是可行的方案,有些可能只是最初的想法、概念。我们对这些进行筛选。而此时我们面临的主要挑战之一——我们的客户同样面临——是需要通过商标审查,确保名称不与市场上的现有商标冲突。我们几乎已经到了一个商标注册难度的临界点。所以我们这里有专职的商标律师助理,也有商标律师,会对这些名称进行分析。这一步会把范围大幅缩小。然后,我们会和我们的语言学家一起做语言学分析,最终得到一批准备呈现给客户的候选名称。
大多数项目我们会做两轮呈现。有时根据时间和预算,只做一轮。但我们确实尽量争取两轮,部分原因是人类喜欢比较。如果你在看房子,你不会看完第一套就说”好,签约吧”。你会多看几处,然后发现我们不需要游泳池,但确实需要好的视野。命名也是一样的道理。我们会从客户那里获得反馈。有时候这是一个共创的过程——客户可能会提出一个词或一个方案,然后我们通过我们的筛选机制为其做评估。整个流程大致如此。最后一个阶段是实施(implement)。
创意团队的背景
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们先在这里暂停一下。关于第二步我有很多想聊的,但我们还是先进入第三步。你们做的这些事情真的让我大开眼界。太不可思议了。这里有太多和我预想的完全不同的东西。
首先,那些真正负责构思名称的创意人员,他们的背景是什么?这些人都是谁?
David Placek: 最基本的素质是他们要有好奇心,而且要勤奋。这是……同时希望——这一点很难在筛选时判断——就是自我意识不要太强。这和我之前所在的广告行业不同,我在一家大型广告公司干了六年。在广告公司里,一个创意人员或文案可以就某个主题思考一番,然后拿着3到4个备选方案来——可能是一则标题或正文。这些方案可能会做一些微调,或者干脆全部打回重做,但整体上是一个相对简单的过程。这里没有任何不敬的意思。
但在我们这里,我不能直接坐下来,说”好,我们要给一款新车命名,我来想100个,你来想100个,然后总能挑出什么来”。那些名字——那个清单上的东西——不足以通过我们的层层筛选。包括法律筛查、语言学筛查。而且别忘了,我们一开始就有创意框架和名称需要满足的标准。所以我们需要的是能够大量产出的人。而且当产出被否定之后,他们能继续干下去。所以我们寻找的是有韧性的人。我们现在——这个问题后面可能会谈到——我们有软件帮助人们生成名称。也不完全是……也许五年后它能直接输出方案,但现在它帮助我们生成想法和方向——语音象征(sound symbolism)的想法、词汇单元、前缀、后缀之类的东西。所以对我们这里的任何人来说,在3到4天内列出2到300个名称并不算太难。
我们从哪里找这些人?更多的是记者出身的写作者,因为他们习惯了快速工作,稿件也经常被毙。有些人可能写过小说。这些年来我们也从广告公司招过人,但效果通常不如其他来源。还有来自华盛顿的演讲稿撰写人——我为政客写过演讲稿。这些人必须拼命工作,大量产出材料,被否定后还得重来。候选人说”我不喜欢这个,重新写”,他们都经历过。这类人更有韧性。他们就是从这些地方来的。找到这样的人并不容易。真的不容易。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我先插一句。等我们走完整个流程之后,我会问你——那些没有资源和时间这样做的人,应该怎么取一个好名字。我先告诉听众们,因为——
David Placek: 好的。
Lenny Rachitsky: ……我想很多人心里都在想这个问题,但现在先不展开。
David Placek: 好。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个流程通常需要多长时间?一家公司想要得到一个出色的名称,理想情况下应该预期多长时间?
David Placek: 对我们来说,理想的周期其实很短,是八周。对于更大规模的企业项目,涉及董事会,需要更多内部博弈和更多轮汇报,通常是三个月的周期。有时候等他们审批完毕、完成商标审查,整个过程可能长达四个月。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,明白了。所以如果是一家大公司,有很多繁文缛节的话,八周是理想情况,实际上可能更长。
跨领域类比命名法
好的,你提到三个团队被赋予不同的、几乎完全不同的背景情境,这一点太有意思了。我们用 Windsurf 举例吧——这个名字太棒了,非常成功,就是你们帮忙想出来的。那么具体操作是不是这样:好,我们现在要给这个 AI IDE 命名。其中一个团队被告知:“不,你们在做一辆自行车。用的是同一份需求简报,但产品是一辆自行车。“然后另一个团队,你们在做——我不知道——一个笔记本电脑?总之就是非技术类的产品,对吧?
David Placek: 是的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 比如一个杯子。能不能多讲讲?因为这个方法太妙了。而且你发现最好的名字往往来自那些不是在”我们要给一个 AI IDE 取个惊艳的名字”这种思路下的团队?
David Placek: 这是一个很好的例子。在技术领域,有些东西比较容易命名——比如有人递给你一部新手机,你看着它,它是实实在在的,有形状、有颜色。但 Windsurf 之前的名字是 Codium,完全是关于某种类型的代码或编程过程。那是无形的。虽然我们做了大量的技术类项目,但对我们来说,真正把握住那种无形的东西依然很难。所以我们这里的规则是:如果遇到这种无形的东西,我们必须把它变得有形。有时候我们的做法不是给一个团队——有时候是给个人——布置为品牌本身创造方案的作业,而是让他们直接沉浸到一个特定的情境中去。
从无形到有形:Windsurf 的诞生
David Placek: 在 Windsurf 这个案例中,核心是关于心流(flow)——让编程的人获得更多心流感,更顺畅、更动态的体验。所以我们给一个团队布置的任务是:把所有能传达这种感觉的东西列出来——不管是真实存在的词汇比如 flow,还是隐喻,或者是体育运动中关于那种动态和运动的表达。Windsurf 就出现在了那张清单上。有时候事情就是这么简单。当然,你必须要有正确的框架,并且给到正确的方向。Windsurf 对我们来说,尤其是对我个人来说,完全符合所有标准。它是一个美妙的意象,是一种体验——字面意义上的身体体验。它是一个复合词,对吧?两个词组合在一起。我们根据自己投入的研究发现,像 Powerbook 或 Facebook 这样的复合词是联想的乘数——因为围绕 wind 有一圈联想,围绕 surf 又有一圈联想。所以 1 + 1 = 3,对吧?
有趣的是,当我们向客户展示复合词时,经常会收到这样的反馈:“嗯,有点长,而且是复合词,我更想要一个简短的单字。“正因如此,我们专门对我们的复合词做了效果研究,以便把这些信息传递出去。我们把研究结果分享给了当时的团队。顺便说一句,Codium 团队是我们合作过的最聪明、最友善、最令人尊敬的团队之一,我为他们的成功感到由衷高兴。我们向他们解释了复合词的乘数效应,也展示了可以使用的视觉意象。这类名字的执行其实很简单。Windsurf 就是这样来的。我先说到这里,看你还需要更多信息吗。
Lenny Rachitsky: 让我顺着这个话题追问一下,可能会稍微偏个题。你们最近越来越多地与 AI 公司合作,这非常有意思。给 AI 产品命名和给传统产品命名,有什么不同?
命名 AI 产品的独特挑战
David Placek: 首先,我们打交道的主要是工程师——那些没有深入涉足创意领域,也不一定懂营销的工程师。而这恰恰是他们的优势所在。我们需要做的是让他们的优势与我们的优势形成互补。这里面有一定挑战,但我认为我们处理得还不错。其次,这是我经历过的发展最快的品类。我有这个视角——我经历过互联网和万维网的早期,那时候发展速度已经相当快了。但与现在相比,互联网时代看起来简直像是幼儿园。我们光是跟上各项发展就已经很吃力了。第三点,也是创意层面的挑战:工程师们找到我们时,往往想要更精致、更复杂的名字,最终可能又变成另一个 Codium、Anduril 或 Anthropic。
当我们预判到 AI 即将起飞时——这更多是我的直觉,我也可能判断错了——我说:“让我们搞清楚这里到底发生了什么。“不仅仅是看谁在开发产品,更要了解人们怎么看待 AI。我们做了一系列研究,大概投入了两万美元左右。我们采访了欧洲、韩国(在亚洲选了一个国家)以及美国的消费者和开发者。这两个群体的看法截然不同。开发者对 AI 完全是正面的,他们看到了未来,看到了巨大的前景,不太担心,有些人会有顾虑,但大多数不会。消费者则持怀疑态度,对此感到担忧,担心自己的工作,也能看到其中的希望,诸如此类,但还没有真正把握住它。
所以 Codium 这个案例中,我们说:“我们认为你们做的事情需要变得更加具体,让人能够抓得住,而且要更加自然,而不是一个 Codium 这样的名字。“他们听取了我们的建议。就这么简单。在这个案例中,我们是对的。另外我也要说,这里面有一定的运气成分。Windsurf 恰好可以注册商标,他们也很果断地采纳了——不是立刻,但大概来来回回用了一周时间就选定它了。我先说到这里,看这是否回答了你的问题。
何时应该更换公司名称
Lenny Rachitsky: 完全回答了。而且我发现一个有趣的趋势,大多数 AI 公司最终的产品名和公司名都不一样。Cursor 原来是 Any Sphere,Bolt 原来是 StackBlitz,Windsurf 原来是 Codium。基本上所有公司都是这样。
什么时候应该更换名字?Windsurf 最近刚刚把整个公司名称从 Codium 改成了 Windsurf,之前那只是一个产品名。所以我想直接问:什么时候值得这样做?感觉这是一件大事,而且非常困难。
David Placek: 确实很有挑战性。而且公司规模越大、客户群越广,改名的工程量就越可观。所以首先要论证的是:这个改动值得。改名后我们的处境会更好。有几种情况适合改名。先说初创公司。初创公司起步很早,进了 Y Combinator 之类的地方,开始融资,他们就是需要一个名字。虽然他们清楚自己在做什么,但方向可能偏移个 10 度或 15 度。几乎是”我们就是得有个名字”。当一家初创公司打电话来说”我们想改名字”时,我听到的一模一样的说法就是:“我们一年半前刚起步,只是为了文件上有个名字,所以选了 X。“而那个名字并不怎么样。这是第一种情况。
第二种情况是公司已经转型了。现有名称不再真正反映他们是谁、或者他们正在成为什么样的公司,这就使得那个名字失效了。第三种情况是公司发生了合并,现在是时候创造一个新的起点,向市场传达:我们是全新的了,也许规模更大了,但更重要的是我们具备了更多能力,我们希望你们了解这一点。正因如此,我们将名称更改为某某,在一定程度上反映了这些能力。
语言学家团队的作用
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想回到语言学家这个话题,我知道这在你们的运作方式中非常独特,也非常有意思。你说过,你们在整个商业生涯中聘请了超过 250 位语言学家。关于语言学家这一环节,按你的描述,他们不是来想名字的,更像是一个过滤器——“这是我们想出来的所有名字,这些在语言学上是好的。“是这样吗?还是这个团队也会提出名字建议?
David Placek: 是的,其中一些人根据具体项目确实会帮助我们创造名字。所以,我们有内部的语言学家,网络中也有语言学家。网络中的语言学家是合同制的,不是全职员工。两者都有。但他们在我们的语言学网络中的主要工作是评估名字。不仅仅是看它意味着消极还是积极的含义,还要看是否有文化层面的意味?政治层面的意味?甚至是某个地方发生了自然灾害之类的事情,这里的人不会知道。即使我们有,如果——
比如发生在意大利,有一座桥或者一场洪水造成了大量人员伤亡。一个在伯克利大学意大利语说得很好、但已经在美国生活了 20 年的人,不会知道这件事。我们不想任何语言学层面的问题拖慢客户的步伐。这就是为什么我们投入建设这个网络。我们有一位专门负责运营这个网络的女士。所以这是我们业务中不可忽视的一个环节,需要持续运营和管理。
Lenny Rachitsky: 有没有哪个你很喜欢的名字没有通过语言学筛选,结果发现”哦糟糕,这个名字在某种文化里含义很糟”?
David Placek: 这种事经常发生,我们会发现一些并非真的可怕但让我们担忧的东西。像澳大利亚这样的文化,或者澳大利亚人,他们有很多有趣的表达方式。所以我们确实会发现”这听起来像某种虾”之类的情况,然后我们会把这些淘汰掉。还有我们发现有些名字带有性暗示,也会淘汰掉。
我想说,每三到四个项目中就会出现一次我们淘汰某个名字、且从不向客户展示的情况。
Lenny Rachitsky: 而且是你很喜欢的,然后你说”好吧,看来这个不能展示了”?
David Placek: 没错。确实会发生。
字母的活力感
Lenny Rachitsky: 你还说过一件很有意思的事:字母表中的每个字母都有一种活力感(vibrance)和体验感。你能举几个例子吗?我知道这不是你具体负责的工作,但字母的感受大概是什么样的?
David Placek: 这些研究来自语言学家,但到现在,我在这一块已经相当熟练了。我们来看看……我从字母 V 说起,因为它最能说明这个问题。根据我们的研究,V 是英文字母表中最具生命力和活力感的声音。无论你出生在罗马还是加州索萨利托都是如此。所以如果你知道这一点,如果你知道当你在世界各地走动时可能会有一些例外——它都会带有那种活力感。看看 Corvette,他们当初可能并不了解 V 的特性,但这是一个完美的名字,适合一辆速度快、引擎轰鸣的汽车。想想 Viagra,同样的道理。也有一些让我们意外的发现。字母 B 的发音是英文字母表中最可靠的声音之一。这也是我们选择 BlackBerry 的理由之一。因为那是又一个客户觉得我们……我的意思是,创始人实际上说过”我觉得 Lexicon 的人疯了”,当他们展示 BlackBerry 的时候。
我们说,“好吧,让我们停下来看看这里有哪些资产。首先,黑色代表科技。没错,不是每个人都认识 berry 这个词,但我们有两个 B。“我们谈到了复合词的性质。于是人们至少会倾身向前去考虑它,而不是太快地否定它。这只是两个例子。我提到过 Azure 中的 Z,那是一个嘈杂的字母。X 作为一个声音是快速而干脆的。当然,所有这些字母还有语义层面的价值。X 与创新相关,从航空器到计算机都是如此。所以你必须同时考虑它的语义和语音象征。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这太迷人了。这些内容我可以听一整天。想想 Vercel 的 V,和他们想做的事情非常吻合——非常有力、有主见的工作方式。而 Guillermo,他感觉就是一个 V 型人。
David Placek: 他确实是。这是一个充满信心的团队的例子,他们的产品非常创新。所以我们有空间去创造新的东西,因为 Vercel 是一个新造词方案,对吧?但请注意,我们把一些非常简单、容易处理的东西组合在了一起。或者说 ver,在这个案例中。我们有 in vino veritas,酒中有真言,诸如此类。还有 verde,绿色。所以非常熟悉。然后他们的 cel,就像 accelerate,加速,这正是他们做的事情——他们加速客户的性能表现。所以对我们来说,这是一个相对容易展示的名字,我们也为他们的领悟能力感到兴奋。
加工流畅性
顺便说一下,这被称为加工流畅性(processing fluency),指的是大脑如何处理信息。多位认知科学领域的研究者告诉我们,我们的大脑有点偏懒。我们不喜欢复杂的东西。所以我们确实努力让所有方案都相对容易让大脑处理。这样大脑就会倾向于接纳它们,而不是说”我太忙了,那个我直接跳过”。复杂的名字是一种劣势,我们确实会尽量避免。而 Vercel,完美的流畅性。
三步流程回顾
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,让我们回到那三个步骤。我们已经讲了两个,然后走了一段很长的弯路,深入探讨了你分享的第二步中很多内容,你称之为”发明”。那么三个步骤基本上是……第一步叫什么来着?
David Placek: 是识别(identify)、发明(invent)。
Lenny Rachitsky: 识别。
David Placek: 我用”发明”这个词是有意的,因为它不仅仅是创造。然后最后一步是实施(implement)。对我们来说,我们不是设计公司。我们真正专注于品牌名称以及支撑该名称的命名体系(nomenclature)。但实施这一步,是帮助客户团队——如果他们选择让我们帮助的话——在方案逐级上报的过程中协助他们做展示。帮助他们撰写更详细的说理,说明为什么这些名字——如果他们要向公司总裁或首席营销官展示三个候选名——为什么这些名字非常有道理,并帮助他们开发我们所说的原型(prototype)。比如我们会把名字印在棒球帽上、T 恤上。我们会把名字放在《华尔街日报》的模拟广告中。一些非常正面的内容,比如”得益于宝洁公司的新产品某某,宝洁股价今年上涨了 10%“。这样高管们就能看到那个名字所能带来的提升效果。这就是我们为客户提供的实施阶段。
David Placek: 我们在实施阶段也会做消费者研究或客户研究,大约有 50% 的项目我们都会这样做——走出去真正与客户的顾客交谈,把名字放入一系列测试演练中。这些演练不是让受访者当一天的营销人员,而是真正让这些顾客感觉到这是一个新品牌。然后我们询问他们的期望,观察这些名字如何激发他们的想象力。这在研究中是最重要的——不是名字是否受欢迎,他们是否觉得舒服,是否符合概念。如果你问人们”这是否符合概念”,你不可避免地总是会得到一个描述性的名字。
Lenny Rachitsky: 你说的一点非常好——需要为与你合作的人配备弹药,帮他们说服内部其他人。因为如果与你合作的人已经认可了,但名字比较大胆、不是一目了然的胜出者,我能理解这很重要——“这些是你应该拿去给大家看的东西,帮助他们看到这个故事、看到模拟效果,诸如此类。”
David Placek: 没错。而真正重要的是帮助他们的管理层从市场和客户的角度来看待这件事。这是非常人之常情的事——人们希望老板满意,希望和老板相处融洽。所以他们会在想,“我不知道我老板会不会喜欢这个。“他或她比较保守之类的。我们会用非常委婉的方式说,“归根结底,这跟你的老板真的没有关系。这跟市场有关。”
好吧,我说起来容易,因为我不在宝洁或英特尔工作,但我们确实尽量给出这样的建议,因为最终目的是在市场上取得成功。所以我们首先会筛选客户。我们真正想合作的是那些为赢而战的客户——他们想要赢,而不只是不想在市场上输。所以我们鼓励直接合作的客户主导这个过程,真正去表态——如果一位经理、首席营销官或总裁说,“看,我们是执行这个方案的团队,我们相信这个方案。我们能把它做成”,大家通常会团结在周围,通常会这样。但如果你只是拿着几个名字去找经理说,“您觉得怎么样?“结果就会不同。
所以我们喜欢参与到实施阶段,因为我们有丰富的经验,而且在客户面前通常也有公信力。
命名漏斗
Lenny Rachitsky: 你说你们会想出三四千个名字。那就是漏斗的顶端?
David Placek: 对。澄清一下,那是想法、方向,并不是——
Lenny Rachitsky: 不是可以直接交付的成品名。
David Placek: 对,完全不是可以直接交付的成品名。
Lenny Rachitsky: 明白了。
David Placek: 这是一个非常低效的过程,有点混乱。所以在那 3000 个名字的列表中,大概有 250 颗潜在的钻石需要切割和检验。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我真的很想看一部关于这个过程的纪录片。目前这段对话是我们能接近它的最好方式了,但真的太有意思了。
我想问一下,如果你是一家创业公司,没有时间或资源做这些,应该怎么操作。但在此之前,关于你们与客户合作的流程,还有什么你觉得重要的、或者可能会让人惊讶的内容要分享吗?
David Placek: 我觉得我们已经讲得差不多了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,太好了。好的,所以收听这个节目的很多人是创始人,很多是产品团队的产品经理。他们正在做一个新功能,准备发布产品,或者被 Y Combinator 录取了即将发布产品。他们大概有——比如说——几周时间。我们得起个名字。他们应该怎么做?
创业公司的命名方法
David Placek: 我会做的第一件事是说,好吧,暂时先把开发名字这件事放一边。我会让他们做一个练习,我认为这对任何人都适用。我们内部思考自己业务时也会做这个。我说,因为 COVID 的缘故,现在大部分沟通都是视频。我会说,“在你面前的一张纸上画一个菱形。“然后我说,“在菱形的顶端,写上’赢’。你怎么定义赢,这才是关键。“我说,“然后在菱形右侧那个角,你有什么可以赢的?写下来。在底部,你需要什么才能赢?然后在左侧最后一个角,你需要说什么才能赢?“然后我说,“现在,我们直接跳到最后那个问题——你需要说什么才能赢。”
这样就能让大家开始思考,“嗯,我们真正拥有的是……我们比这个更好。“然后我就会说,“好,现在你们要把它转化成关于体验和行为的表达。你想在市场上表现为什么样?你想让市场对你有什么样的回应?你在创造什么样的体验?“然后他们会开始讨论一些东西。我会说,“现在你需要不断追问这一点,你需要继续深挖。你需要寻找隐喻,因为这关乎体验。“我会给他们举一些我们谈过的例子——“BlackBerry,它向市场传递的是:他们跟那些家伙不一样。“想想 Google 和 Infoseek 的对比,对吧?Google 是一种体验。Google 说的是,“我不知道这些人要做什么,但肯定不是这种实用的、平庸的 Infoseek。“这就是吸引人的地方。
所以我大概会做这样一些辅导,然后通常就能让他们解放思路。他们不再把名字仅仅看作一个词——一个词的价值也许是有限的——而是把它看作在创造一种体验,而体验有带来无限价值的可能。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好,让我试着帮大家复述一下。建议是画一个三角形——你要起名字的时候,画一个三角形。顶端写”赢”。左下角,是怎么赢来着?
David Placek: 对,菱形是两个三角形拼成的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哦,菱形。好的,我明白了。我脑子里一直想的是三角形。
David Placek: 我理解。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好,明白了。菱形,很好。
David Placek: 右侧那个角是,你已经有什么可以赢的?因为他们能进入 Y Combinator 或拿到种子资金,说明他们一定有一些可以赢的东西。而很多时候,创业公司的人并不意识到自己实际上拥有多少可以赢的东西,因为他们太忙、压力太大。然后,你需要什么才能赢?最后,你需要说什么?然后再回到那个问题——对我们来说什么是赢?顺便说一句,在我们接到一个项目时,通常也会从这个问题开始。如果我们和一个房间里的五个人讨论,这五个人对公司”赢”的定义各不相同。把这一点理清是好事,因为从创意的角度来看,我们可以沿着不同的路径探索。
Lenny Rachitsky: 让我们确保大家记住了这些表述,因为这个方法太棒了。我想很多人会做笔记然后说,“好,我也要这样做。“希望如此——请再把菱形的四个点说一遍,让大家可以完整记下来。
David Placek: 菱形顶端就是”赢”这个词,下面是对我们作为一家公司来说如何定义”赢”。一开始可以很简单,比如我们想成为这个领域的主导者。但你确实需要深入琢磨。那到底意味着什么,对吧?菱形右侧那个角是”我们有什么可以赢?“我们现在正在做的哪些事情让我们成为赢家?然后我们来到菱形底部,是”我们需要什么才能赢?“那里可能有技术层面的东西。人们会谈到人才和资源。他们常常会说,“我们需要一个好名字。“我们总是会纠正这一点。不是好名字,而是对的名字。
最后一个角是”我们需要说什么?“这就是我想说的,这是你真正需要花时间去思考的地方——所有你需要说的、你能说的,甚至你希望能说的但暂时还说不出来的东西。但你想要一个名字,它要有足够的灵活性,等你能说出来的时候,它依然成立。这就引导他们进入行为和体验层面。这通常会引发与创始人之间非常深入的内部讨论。
Lenny Rachitsky: 当你说”有什么可以赢”的时候,你思考的是你拥有什么能帮助你赢?然后你需要什么才能实现这个赢?
David Placek: 是的,没错。所有公司都处于同样的境地。他们有一些东西,但也需要……宝洁可能会说,“我们需要一个好的分销商。”
“好,行,把这个放到清单上。”
然后你可能会说,“嗯,我们需要……”到了”我们需要说什么”这个环节,我们必须说正确的话,让分销商对我们感兴趣。然后你就沿着这条路径深入下去。那具体是什么?如果你认真做的话,这不是一个一小时的练习,可能需要在接下来的四五天里反复做。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的。所以你有了这个菱形。然后接下来的想法就是坐下来,比如在 Google Doc 里把名字写下来。
David Placek: 对,然后你开始。但有一种情况……也许可以说是天真。我觉得大概用这个词最合适,因为我确实一直在听到这种情况。“嘿,我们研究过了,列了 200 个名字,但觉得里面没有合适的。”
我就会说,“200 个名字不够。做到 1000、1500 个名字和方向。不要评估它们。只管生成名字、方向和创意,然后开个会。不要评估,而是推测。“我们用这个名字能做什么?它有什么潜力?在我们这个行业里有太多的过度评估。这可以理解。我们人类之所以能生存下来,就是因为我们善于判断这幅画面有什么问题。我想过马路,过马路安全吗?怎么回事?诸如此类。你必须对抗这种本能。你必须说,“让我们暂时搁置判断。让我们做一个练习,从这 10 个我们认为可能行的名字中选出来,看看我们拿它能做什么。“因为关键在于你如何执行。
回到 windsurf 的例子,当我们给他们看人们冲浪、波浪之类的图片时,如果他们说,“啊,这对我们完全不合适,我非常不舒服。“那这就不是他们的名字。但他们接受了它,“好,我能理解这个。对我们来说执行起来很容易。它有动感,它与众不同。“这就是为什么我们为人们构建这些原型。这也是我认为……我能给创业公司或者开饼干店的人最好的建议就是,不要只是一份 200 个名字的清单。应该是 10 到 15 份各 200 个名字的清单。而且要思考我们需要在这里说什么?什么行为?我们希望人们在市场上对我们有什么感受?我猜想对于 Google,人们会感到一种释然,因为它不是一个描述性的名字。市场上出现了一个全新的东西。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对。Infoseek,现在想想,那真是一个描述性的名字。
David Placek: 是的。
关于选择大胆的名字
Lenny Rachitsky: 好,这方面再问一个问题。假设你有大约 2000 或 1000 个名字的列表。这里存在一种张力,就是选择某种……作为一个自己动手做的人。你的建议是选择大胆的东西,而不是描述性的东西。你不会一眼就认出它。显然,当你自己做的时候这很难做到。你的建议就是不要忽视这一点。不要把那些感觉太大胆的名字扔掉,找到一个真正如你所建议的那样大胆的名字。
David Placek: 首先,我们不要忽略……人类心理,人类只会关注新的东西,或者更准确地说,与众不同的东西。所以如果你在看鞋子,全都是黑色的、黑色的、黑色的、黑色的,然后下一双鞋是红色的,你首先注意到的就是它。这通常会给人们许可。他们会说,“好,我明白了。“所以,去找你清单上那些名字之间真正不同的地方,同时也要找与市场上已有的东西不同的地方。然后你碰到像微软这样的客户,他们说,“Azure 是与众不同的。未来会有很多云相关的东西,而且……”这里有一个相关的点,Azure 是蓝色的。所以有一个轻微的逻辑关联,我认为这坦白说给了他们更多勇气去推进它。但听我说,这不是一项容易的任务。我的意思是,这就是为什么我们从事这个行业,以及为什么我觉得我们应该走专业化路线,因为如果你同时做设计和/或广告或其他事情,你就不可能拥有那种智力引擎。
你无法获得我们所拥有的那种智力引擎。所以我知道这很困难,但它是可以做到的,你只需要给自己一些时间。但停止评估。搁置判断,去推测。这是我对试图自己完成这件事的人的头号建议。那么,你可以怎么获得帮助?你可以和你的员工交谈,但不要问”你觉得这个名字怎么样?“而是问”你觉得这个名字能为我们做什么?“这是一个好得多的问题。如果你去找不在你公司工作的朋友,我有一个有趣的练习建议。我说,“听好了,去找他们说——“他们知道你在做什么。然后说,“你知道吗?我们刚有了一个新竞争对手,他们的名字是某某。你觉得怎么样?”
这样做的好处是,你不是在让他们给出一个评估名字的意见。你是在问他们那个名字对他们起到了什么作用?你获得的信息是关于那个名字的——他们在告诉你那个名字对他们做了什么,它如何帮助他们去想象,这是任何名字的基本功能。稍微偏个题,但我想说一下我们的研究方式。我们现在主要做定量研究,但多年来我们做的一直是定性研究。现在我们也还在做。但我们发现……我们一直在寻找那个——
这么说吧。我们一直在寻找消费者给出的这样一种回答。如果消费者说,“我对那个新产品不太了解,但我知道他们跟其他人不一样。“这时候我们就知道我们有了一个好名字,因为他们……那么这里发生了什么?我的意思是,我们使用的专业术语是,这个名字会创造一种倾向,让人愿意去考虑这个产品,因为他们跟其他人不一样。而不是,“我已经有类似的东西了。我很忙。我不需要再来一个那样的东西。我需要一些新的、不同的,并且希望更好的东西。”
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。这是个很好的提醒。我找到了你的一段话,正好是这个意思,“如果你的团队对这个名字感到舒服,很可能你还没找到对的名字。“
两极分化是好兆头
David Placek: 是的。顺便说一句,与此相对的是,我们会寻找两极分化。我们会寻找团队中围绕这些方案争论时产生的张力,因为我们认为两极分化恰恰是这个词具有力量的标志。有一个有趣的故事,说实话,教会我这一点的人是 Andy Grove,当时是在为 Pentium 命名的过程中。我从他身上学到了很多。我一直说,自己非常幸运能和他一起合作 Pentium、Xeon 以及其他几个项目。但当我们去向执行委员会汇报 Pentium 方案的时候……顺便说一下,在内部,其中一个候选名字是……考虑到语境,描述性的,一群工程师,ProChip。“嘿,专业的、高端的、芯片。所以应该叫 ProChip。“Andy 让我做了一个关于这个方案的优点汇报,然后他说,“现在让我告诉你们为什么我认为这是正确的名字。”
他说,“因为我看到了人们对它产生的两极分化。这边是 ProChip,那边是 Pentium。“他说,“这告诉我 Pentium 是有力量的。“他说,“这就是为什么我认为我们应该选它。“我从未忘记这一点。所以,我们确实会寻找这种两极分化。当我们讲这个故事的时候,人们会说,“你说得对。确实……我是说,我们确实在为此争论,而且这个名字有一种强度。“这正是你想要的。你不会想带着一个缺乏大胆或力度的名字走进竞争极其激烈的市场,无论哪个品类都是如此。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个故事太精彩了。再总结一下,这里的一个建议就是,如果你的团队中有一半人,或者不知道多少比例的人讨厌它,又有一定比例的人热爱它,这是个好兆头。
David Placek: 是的,确实是。去寻找那种两极分化。这就是我们要寻找的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我也很喜欢这个建议——问大家,“嘿,假设我们的竞争对手刚发布了一个新产品,叫做 Windsurf。“看看你的团队反应如何?如果他们的反应是,“哇,这个名字真不错。我对那个产品感兴趣了。“这就是你要寻找的信号。
David Placek: 对,完全正确。
.com 还重要吗?
Lenny Rachitsky: 你们想出来的名字,.com 有多重要?我想现在应该很难拿到了。你们在命名的过程中怎么看待域名?
David Placek: 我很高兴你问了这个问题,因为到了今天,它已经完全不重要了。.com 或者 URL 地址已经变成了一种区号。无论你在 415 还是 615 区号,对人们来说都无所谓了。而且现在有了 AI,SEO 的重要性也会降低。所以我认为这里的核心原则是,先把名字本身想对。之后如果你能拿到 .com,当然,去拿。但如果拿不到,也有变通办法。你可以在前面加一个前缀或一个小词,或者在后面加一个词,或者用 .ai 之类的后缀。但核心原则是先把名字本身想对。
那些特别在意 .com 的人——确实有人特别纠结这个——顺便说一句,往往是年纪偏大的人。他们脑子里还保留着互联网最火热时期对 .com 的认知,这在 25 年前确实有差别。但现在已经过去 25 年甚至 30 年了,对吧?好消息是,正因为价值降低了,你通常可以用正确的方式谈判,花一万五千、两万、两万五、三万美元买到一个 URL。我们会说,“嘿,如果你能做到,随你便。不过我会把这三万美元投入到市场推广上。”
Lenny Rachitsky: 太好了,这让人安心。我想很多创始人可能会觉得,“该死,已经没有可用的名字了。“让我把视角拉远,问你一个也许可以作为我们对话收尾的问题。
假设你在电梯里遇到某人,我猜这种情况一定经常发生在你身上——“嘿,David,我需要想一个名字。你最大的建议是什么?“你会怎么回答?
最核心的建议
David Placek: 我会回到那个原则——忘掉词语本身,去思考行为和体验。然后从创意辅助的角度,我非常相信同步性(synchronicity)。我们会刻意去制造这种同步性,我给你举几个例子。就是把两个不相关的想法连接起来的这种做法。所以我会说,“你看,如果有人跟我说他们制造帆船,而我在想——“我就在 Sausalito,大概这就是为什么想到这个例子。我正在试图为自己的帆船公司取一个新名字。
我会说,忘掉帆船。我会去找一些关于打猎的杂志,或者飞行杂志。就翻看那些杂志,拿出一个笔记本,把你喜欢的词写下来。你喜欢的表达方式。然后那种同步性就会发挥作用,我会说,“我愿意跟你赌五块钱,从这两本杂志里,你一定会找到一个你从未想到过的词,但它会以某种方式与航海产生关联。”
Lenny Rachitsky: 这跟你之前讲的故事非常契合——你们有不同的团队,最终想出获胜名字的团队,恰恰是那些在思考产品的完全不同版本的人。
David Placek: 是的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太有意思了。好。David,这次对话完全是我期望的样子。我觉得我们会帮到很多人。在我们进入非常精彩的快问快答之前,你还有什么没覆盖到的,或者想留给听众的最后一点建议、故事或感悟吗?
David Placek: 我想强调一点,那就是我真心希望听众们开始意识到一个品牌名称可以有多么大的价值。你不仅仅是在找一个词,你是在找一种体验。如果你不仅找到了一个好名字,而是找到了那个对的名字,它的价值几乎是无限的。所以要给自己留出时间,给自己留出预算,给自己配备对的资源来做这件事。第二点是,我们在这里确实很希望能帮助到别人,所以我一直很乐意和人聊聊他们的项目进展,看我们能否帮上忙,或者只是给一些建议。我们安排了所谓的办公时间(office hours),虽然名额有限,但我们对此是开放的。这是一个长期主义的做法,所以我也想把这一点留给各位听众。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们这就把你的办公时间约满了。我喜欢这个提议。我觉得很多人会去预约。这太棒了。
David,那么我们进入非常精彩的快问快答环节。我有五个问题。准备好了吗?
David Placek: 好了,准备好了。
快问快答
Lenny Rachitsky: 开始吧。你会推荐给别人的两三本书是什么?
David Placek: 有一本书叫《Resilience》,作者是一位前海豹突击队成员。这本书不是关于战斗的,只有很少一部分涉及当海豹突击队的经历。它主要是关于如何克服困难,关于坚韧。我认为这个世界上每个人都会面临各种挑战和困境,所以我确实会推荐这本书。
第二本是 Andrew Roberts 最新写丘吉尔的那本。丘吉尔确实是我的英雄之一。他是 20 世纪最不寻常、最具挑衅性的政治家之一。而这个人同样体现了坚韧,经历了起伏和坚持。所以我确实喜欢推荐这本书。有些人会歪着头说,“嗯,不知道。“好像觉得这可能是一本枯燥的书,但这两本确实是我经常推荐的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 谁会说丘吉尔的故事枯燥?这太荒谬了。
David Placek: 我也这么觉得。确实荒谬。
近期喜爱的影视
Lenny Rachitsky: 他太令人着迷了。最近有一部纪录片,让我真正看清了这个人物。令人叹服。
好,你最近有没有特别喜欢的一部电影或电视剧?
David Placek: 对我来说是《黄石》(Yellowstone)系列。我们一家很幸运,在蒙大拿有一些房产。而且——
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,你这日子过得太惬意了。
David Placek: 是啊,非常……说实话,我没法形容自己有多幸运。这块地是我28年前买的,那时候便宜多了。那是在一场暴风雪中买的,感觉就是它了。不过我特别喜欢的是《1883》,也就是《黄石》的前传。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我正想问你看没看那部,那部真的太精彩了。
David Placek: 对,还有后面那部《1923》,讲的是战后时期。《1883》真的让人感受到那些早期美国人在那样一个地方——美丽却艰苦严酷的地方,比如蒙大拿——建立生活需要付出什么代价。太了不起了。制作和编剧这些东西的人才华横溢。叫 Taylor Sheridan,我记得是。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢故事里蒙大拿几乎是他们那段旅程中最轻松的一段。
David Placek: 没错,确实如此。
Lenny Rachitsky: 天哪。你甚至都不需要看《黄石》,直接从《1883》开始就完全够了。
David Placek: 对。实际上我推荐大家——一共有三部,但如果你想了解美国西部的真实面貌,那就是《1883》。
Lenny Rachitsky: 是的。其实我在这个播客上推荐过好几次了。所以我很高兴你也选了这个。
最近发现的最爱产品
下一个问题:你最近有没有发现一个特别喜欢的产品?可能是你命名的,也可能不是。
David Placek: 不是我命名的,不过它的名字确实非常好。我们全家——我有两个女儿和妻子——我们都钓飞蝇。去年夏天我真的……我给自己买了一个,但送给了妻子。那种名义上是给她的礼物,但我知道自己用得更多。是一根 Hardy 的鱼竿。一个古老的英国飞蝇钓竿品牌,但这根竿非常漂亮。完全适合蒙大拿的大河。所以这是我最喜欢的一件购物。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这是播客史上第一根飞蝇钓竿。不错的选择。
人生信条
下一个问题:你有没有一个最喜欢的人生格言,经常回想起来,或者分享给朋友和家人?
David Placek: 有。稍微长一点,所以我写了下来。我写在这里了,是 T.E. Lawrence,也就是”阿拉伯的劳伦斯”的一句话。如果我找到的话——我觉得这是一句很棒的名言,希望你的听众会喜欢。他是这样说的:“所有的人都会做梦,但并非同样地做梦。那些在夜间于心灵尘封的角落里做梦的人,白天醒来发现那不过是虚妄;而白日做梦的人才是危险的,因为他们可能睁着双眼将梦想付诸行动,使之成为可能。”
我多年前读到这段话,深受触动。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这句名言太精彩了。让我想起那个”竞技场上的人”的名言。
David Placek: 对,是的,同样的理念,只是稍有不同。而且我也觉得”阿拉伯的劳伦斯”这个人本身就很迷人,他所做的事情。所以在某些方面很令人振奋。
Lenny Rachitsky: 电影也很棒。
最欣赏的品牌命名
好,最后一个问题。我来试试这个:有没有一个不是你命名的名字,让你觉得”哇,这个名字太棒了,真希望是我想出来的”?
David Placek: 我告诉你,确实有一个,就是 DreamWorks。我觉得这是一个极好的名字,而且有几分讽刺意味的是,娱乐行业总体上名字都相当平淡。你有那么多才华横溢的人,但看看那些制作公司、电影厂牌的名字——Comcast 之类的——都非常平淡。而 DreamWorks 就像 Sonos 一样,每一项都达标。复合词(compound)——“梦”。你对 DreamWorks 寄予厚望。他们创造了一种体验——在电影中做梦的体验。我觉得这是一个极好的名字,真希望是我做的。
尾声
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个回答太酷了。David,非常感谢你来做这期节目。太精彩了。我学到了很多东西,不出所料。我觉得很多人以后在面对这个话题时,会轻松很多。
David Placek: 我当然希望如此。我确实这么希望。这次对话非常、非常愉快,非常有深度,我对你做这件事的方式和你的才华充满敬意。所以,我们能够走到一起真的很幸运。而且我们住在同一个地方,也许可以一起喝杯咖啡什么的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 确实。北加州万岁。非常感谢你的到来。
David Placek: 不客气。
Lenny Rachitsky: 大家再见。
David Placek: 保重。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Andrew Roberts | Andrew Roberts(保留原文) |
| Andy Grove | 安迪·格罗夫(Intel 前CEO) |
| asymmetric advantage | 非对称优势(asymmetric advantage) |
| BlackBerry | BlackBerry(品牌名,保留原文) |
| Bob MacFarlane | Bob MacFarlane(保留原文) |
| cognitive science | 认知科学(cognitive science) |
| Comcast | Comcast(保留原文) |
| compound | 复合词(compound) |
| CTO | 首席技术官 |
| cumulative advantage | 累积优势(cumulative advantage) |
| Dasani | Dasani(保留原文,可口可乐旗下瓶装水品牌) |
| DreamWorks | DreamWorks(保留原文) |
| flow | 心流(flow) |
| Guillermo Rauch | Guillermo Rauch(保留原文) |
| Holiday Inn | Holiday Inn(保留原文) |
| identify | 识别(identify) |
| implement | 实施(implement) |
| Infoseek | Infoseek(早期搜索引擎,保留原文) |
| invent | 发明(invent) |
| Lenny Rachitsky | Lenny Rachitsky(主持人,保留原文) |
| Lexicon Branding | Lexicon Branding(品牌命名公司,保留原文) |
| linguistics | 语言学(linguistics) |
| Melian Dialogues | 《弥罗斯对话录》 |
| morpheme | 词素(morpheme) |
| multiplier effect | 乘数效应(multiplier effect) |
| nomenclature | 命名体系(nomenclature) |
| office hours | 办公时间(office hours) |
| palindrome | 回文(palindrome) |
| pivot | 转型(pivot) |
| processing fluency | 加工流畅性(processing fluency) |
| prototype | 原型(prototype) |
| Sonos | Sonos(保留原文) |
| sound symbolism | 语音象征(sound symbolism) |
| synchronicity | 同步性(synchronicity) |
| T.E. Lawrence | T.E. Lawrence(“阿拉伯的劳伦斯”,保留原文) |
| Taylor Sheridan | Taylor Sheridan(保留原文) |
| Vercel | Vercel(保留原文) |
| vibrance | 活力感(vibrance) |
| Winston Churchill | 丘吉尔 |
| Y Combinator | Y Combinator(保留原文) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)