Company, Division & Product Naming Plus… Logo (Identity) Guidelines
Process <ul><li>Review Naming Guidelines - options </li></ul><ul><li>Concur on our approach </li></ul><ul><li>Product posi...
Naming Guidelines <ul><li>Review guidelines first </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level sets the entire team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Group Concurrence <ul><li>We should agree to go through  process  – before solidifying opinions </li></ul><ul><li>Examples...
Branding Considerations <ul><li>Institutional brand identity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Acid test – Microsoft “Where do you wan...
Company/Division Naming <ul><li>Two conventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Call after primary product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><u...
Corporate Tag Lines <ul><li>Identity (what they make) known </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft – tag line </li></ul></ul><ul>...
Product Positioning <ul><li>The  apex  of all strategy </li></ul><ul><li>How it is positioned within the field of competit...
Branding <ul><li>Purpose: Prevent price erosion (better brands can demand higher prices, more credibility) </li></ul><ul><...
Product Naming <ul><li>#1 preference: Call it what it is or what it does. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft...
Tag Lines <ul><li>If your name needs “clarification” then describe it with a tag line </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3D Website Bui...
Bad   Examples <ul><li>Nike (fine, if you have millions to create equity) </li></ul><ul><li>IBM (initial – fine, after bil...
Approaches (good or bad) <ul><li>Suggestive - Klenex </li></ul><ul><li>Acronym - IBM </li></ul><ul><li>Obvious – Microsoft...
Compare Current Name <ul><li>Name: </li></ul><ul><li>Positioning: </li></ul><ul><li>Tag Line: </li></ul><ul><li>Classifica...
Example <ul><li>Product Name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Positioning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>#1 best-selling </li></ul></...
Competition <ul><li>Competitors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May want to consider their naming conventions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
Brainstorming <ul><li>All is fair – no critique </li></ul><ul><li>Software to help ($110 NameExpress.com) </li></ul><ul><l...
Evaluate Candidates <ul><li>Cross off obvious </li></ul><ul><li>Review remaining against guidelines, promise, marketabilit...
Research <ul><li>US Trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Foreign Trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Products and Business Names </li></ul>...
Finalize <ul><li>Finalize or re-cycle through process </li></ul><ul><li>Register name, URL </li></ul><ul><li>Logo Creation...
Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Priority for effective, less expensive, quick recognition </li></ul><ul><li>You can brand anything...
Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Priority for best logos </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make the company logo the name </li></ul></ul><ul><u...
Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Make the company logo the name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coca Cola, CNN, Yahoo, Citrix, Intuit, Intel,...
Logo Guidelines <ul><li>2. Name integrated with unique graphic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-mart (mart inside the K) </li></ul>...
Logo Guidelines <ul><li>3. A “mark” that can stand on its own </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tangible object you can visualize </li...
Logo Guidelines <ul><ul><li>4. Worst: A mark that cannot stand on its own </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must have a text ...
Logo Selection <ul><li>Select from the first option whenever possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use the name as the logo </li>...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Chanimal Naming Logo Guidelines

287

Published on

Rule for company, product naming and top 4 criteria for an effective logo

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
287
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chanimal Naming Logo Guidelines

  1. 1. Company, Division & Product Naming Plus… Logo (Identity) Guidelines
  2. 2. Process <ul><li>Review Naming Guidelines - options </li></ul><ul><li>Concur on our approach </li></ul><ul><li>Product positioning – brand promise </li></ul><ul><li>Compare current product name to guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing equity, brand transition strategy, constraints (code name change, collateral) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Review competition </li></ul><ul><li>Create or brainstorm for candidates – no critique </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate candidates against guidelines, brand promise, marketability </li></ul><ul><li>Create short list </li></ul><ul><li>Positioning statements (positions, clarifies) </li></ul><ul><li>Research US & Foreign trademark, product, business, URL, user group (consumer) </li></ul><ul><li>Finalize name based on availability or recycle through approach </li></ul><ul><li>Register name, URL </li></ul><ul><li>Logo & Identity (Review Logo Guidelines) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Naming Guidelines <ul><li>Review guidelines first </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level sets the entire team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creates baseline rules that we agree on </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces personal opinion and setting up camps--unless based on accepted rules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opinions are good, but if they don’t follow agreed upon rules, then they are subjective, not empirical and may not represent what market prefers. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likewise, my opinion, outside of the rules, counts for “1” (although interesting, not statistically significant) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Should not discredit examples since they are not always market relevant, since they are concept relevant </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Group Concurrence <ul><li>We should agree to go through process – before solidifying opinions </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HRW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>100 years of tradition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strong camps </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Empirical evidence - 3% recognition in their logo </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Result – 100% concurrence we needed to change it </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Everything not finalized – discussion PowerPoint </li></ul>
  5. 5. Branding Considerations <ul><li>Institutional brand identity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Acid test – Microsoft “Where do you want to go today?” Actual: “A Safe Bet” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positive and negative experience/baggage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Metrowerks – Codewarrior </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motorola – kept company name, transition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Now Freescale – across the board (building new) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Product brand identity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P&G approach – product branding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attachmate / DCA – institutional branding vs product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft approach - combined </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendations – depends on association </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t eat our own dog food. External perceptions critical. </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Company/Division Naming <ul><li>Two conventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Call after primary product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Goldmine, WordPerfect, Coca-Cola </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Metrowerks discussion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standalone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Founder. Dell, Ford, Mercedes (after person), Covey </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Suggestive. Firestone, Thrifty, Dollar </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Combination. Micro/Soft </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acronyms. IBM. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Initials – engineering loves them, hard (expensive) to brand </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tangible objects. Apple, Red Hat (easier to remember) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Corporate Tag Lines <ul><li>Identity (what they make) known </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft – tag line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sun – tag line </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Descriptive (answers, “who are you”) </li></ul><ul><li>Positioning (#1, most, leader) </li></ul><ul><li>Rules of thumb – 7-9 words (billboard) </li></ul><ul><li>Association </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tied to corporation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tivoli – An IBM Company </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Metrowerks – A Motorola Company </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acid test… worth more with, or without associate w/holding co. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquisition – watch out, don’t loose existing brand equity in the transition </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Product Positioning <ul><li>The apex of all strategy </li></ul><ul><li>How it is positioned within the field of competitors? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the unique differentor? </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crossfax – a hook was built in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Codewarrior for Windows – no hook, made one </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Name reflects positioning – if possible. If not, tagline reflects it. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Branding <ul><li>Purpose: Prevent price erosion (better brands can demand higher prices, more credibility) </li></ul><ul><li>What do prospects expect from a company like yours? </li></ul><ul><li>What promises can you deliver? Brand promise (implied, expressed). Examples? </li></ul><ul><li>Forget about what you are known for, capture and become what the market wants (not a person, a company/product) </li></ul><ul><li>Overarching positioning </li></ul><ul><li>3-4 positioning statements that validate the positioning </li></ul>
  10. 10. Product Naming <ul><li>#1 preference: Call it what it is or what it does. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Word, WinFax, PhotoShop, Corel Draw </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not sexy, but immediate, inexpensive to brand, owns category </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Acid test </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Call prospect (or buyer if a reseller). Give name of the product. Ask, “What is it?” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If they can’t identify the product, or at least the category – start over (too hard to brand) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Tag Lines <ul><li>If your name needs “clarification” then describe it with a tag line </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3D Website Builder (category) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Everything you need to create 3D VRML Worlds On The Internet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Describes, positions, (11 words) beyond 7-9 word rule </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Difficult names </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ascend, HP Newwave, Eudora </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ami Pro </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7-9 word rule </li></ul>
  12. 12. Bad Examples <ul><li>Nike (fine, if you have millions to create equity) </li></ul><ul><li>IBM (initial – fine, after billions in equity) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International Business Machines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>You can brand anything… with enough money . </li></ul><ul><li>Unless you have hundreds of millions to spend, then choose a “cheaper” brand name </li></ul><ul><li>No subliminal – initials, codes (AmiPro) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Approaches (good or bad) <ul><li>Suggestive - Klenex </li></ul><ul><li>Acronym - IBM </li></ul><ul><li>Obvious – Microsoft Mouse </li></ul><ul><li>Clipping – FedEx </li></ul><ul><li>Product – Coca Cola </li></ul><ul><li>Resource – Toys R Us </li></ul><ul><li>Abstract – Samna </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit – Trusted Data </li></ul>
  14. 14. Compare Current Name <ul><li>Name: </li></ul><ul><li>Positioning: </li></ul><ul><li>Tag Line: </li></ul><ul><li>Classification </li></ul><ul><li>Existing equity </li></ul><ul><li>Brand transition strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Constraints (cost (code name, collateral)) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Example <ul><li>Product Name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Positioning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>#1 best-selling </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Highest ranked </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Description (what does it do) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit (How does it help) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>#1 Best-selling Software To Do What? </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Competition <ul><li>Competitors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May want to consider their naming conventions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May or may not be critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Home spun alternatives </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Brainstorming <ul><li>All is fair – no critique </li></ul><ul><li>Software to help ($110 NameExpress.com) </li></ul><ul><li>Nameboy.com (free engine to come up with a site name, but works for all names) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Evaluate Candidates <ul><li>Cross off obvious </li></ul><ul><li>Review remaining against guidelines, promise, marketability </li></ul><ul><li>Consider </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to remember </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 syllables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Balanced </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Power Consonants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marketability (CodeWarrior, Facility Commander) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Determine short list </li></ul>
  19. 19. Research <ul><li>US Trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Foreign Trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Products and Business Names </li></ul><ul><li>Field of use – watch out </li></ul><ul><li>URL availability </li></ul>
  20. 20. Finalize <ul><li>Finalize or re-cycle through process </li></ul><ul><li>Register name, URL </li></ul><ul><li>Logo Creation </li></ul>
  21. 21. Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Priority for effective, less expensive, quick recognition </li></ul><ul><li>You can brand anything with enough money – key is immediate recognition , minimal cost </li></ul><ul><li>How will it look in black and white? </li></ul><ul><li>Vertical or horizontal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Horizontal is easier to work with for most treatments </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Priority for best logos </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make the company logo the name </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Name integrated with unique graphic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A “mark” that can stand on its own </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A mark that cannot stand on its own </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Logo Guidelines <ul><li>Make the company logo the name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coca Cola, CNN, Yahoo, Citrix, Intuit, Intel, IBM, Goldmine, Microsoft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Should not be able to duplicate it with a word processor (must be a graphic , not just a font) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Logo Guidelines <ul><li>2. Name integrated with unique graphic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-mart (mart inside the K) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GoodYear (winged foot between Good and Year) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>McDonalds (text intersecting arches) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AOL </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Logo Guidelines <ul><li>3. A “mark” that can stand on its own </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tangible object you can visualize </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large enough to differentiate at distance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fewest impressions to make connection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Apple (bite out of apple) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Red Hat (physical felt red hat) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Logo Guidelines <ul><ul><li>4. Worst: A mark that cannot stand on its own </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must have a text name next to it to equate it to anything </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nike swoosh (swoosh did not mean anything. Fine if you have hundreds of millions (brand anything)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Goldmine newer logo (means absolutely nothing on its own) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>HRW (Owl hidden in bushes, same size line points, invisible at a distance of 2 feet) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Also, the text next to it was not unique, it was inconsistent (sometimes sans, or serif, initials or spelled out) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only 3% of respondents could identify the standalone logo as ours (after 100 years of use (or misuse)). A travesty. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acid test. Take away the name and ask, “Who is this?” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>You’ll recognize those that have spent a fortune branding, but not those that have not. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Logo Selection <ul><li>Select from the first option whenever possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use the name as the logo </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easier to establish equity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cheaper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not the same rules for a mass consumer product (but doesn’t apply to us) </li></ul></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×