Simplifying tech naming (published Winter 2019)
Using brand architecture diagrams Naming can be a challenge, even for the most tech-savvy partners and clients. How to come up with a name that enables others to decipher what your entity does or doesn’t do? A look at the short history of tech names (in law firms) confirms this is a delicate art. Often when names are developed at practice area level, firms (such as Allen & Overy and Freshfields) end up with a disjointed portfolio of abstract and descriptive names. Some firms adopt a more top-down approach and use a sub-branding strategy to create a suite of related names. This approach doesn’t necessarily make names easier to understand, but at least you know where they’re coming from. DWF is a good example. At the last count, it had more than 11 DWF sub-branded services (12 if you include the new DWF Mindcrest). It also uses DWF to endorse some of its descriptive and abstract named products (DWF Pinpoint, DWF Evoclaim, DWF Notify etc). To tackle the naming challenge, give the process more structure. Revisit or develop your brand architecture diagram. Visual schematic that shows every brand in the company portfolio – services, products, modules, tools, etc – and demonstrates how each one relates to the masterbrand, to each other and to your audiences. This structure enables more sensible and rational decision- making about product naming, by helping to cut through subjective suggestions and ill-thought-out, throwaway names. It also makes it easier to discuss and analyse naming scenarios. What’s more, it gives a structure for your acquired products. Structuring your products Brand architecture also provides useful discussion on grouping products. As in the DWF example, lists can give an impression of order, but like any ‘to-do list’, they grow! Without strict management, lists (can) become unwieldy, and this makes them harder to understand.
Allen & Overy experienced and overcame this. The firm decided to give its products order and meaning firstly by packaging everything under its overarching proposition, Advanced Delivery, and then by grouping its range of products and programmes under three headings: Solutions. Technology. Resources. Bird & Bird, under its ‘twoBirds Client Solutions’ platform, went further. It created eight groups: Access, Analytics, Assessment, Automation, Consulting, Flexibility, Insights and Protection. Each contains different products and solutions. It divided consulting further into discrete solutions: OXYGY, CyberBox, Foothold and Pattern. Phew! Groupings help to signpost clients to where they can find the resources for what they want to achieve. But, in the case of Bird & Bird (and of DWF), there’s still an awful lot of meaning to communicate and understand. This is a big job for marketing! Kennedys iQ made it easier for audiences to understand its six modules by reverting to a set of descriptive names, and structuring each as part of the claims cycle. Starting with Incident Manager, and ending with Recovery Manager, its analogy of a circle helps audiences to grasp what each module does, and how they relate to each other. Naming conventions Talking of naming, another benefit of reviewing and developing your brand architecture is the opportunity to establish naming conventions. Types of names can include descriptive, abstract, and names that use the firm’s initials or acronyms. It can be tempting (and even legitimate) to adopt an abstract approach: creating a cool, fun, disrupter-sounding name such as Dupe Killer is a sure way to express techno credentials. Remember that each new brand name requires additional marketing, and additional space in people’s memories. You don’t want to create confusion and misunderstanding. Consider, too, the financial and human energy you’ll need to support multiple brands.
22
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator