

Dot-com names get dottier: X is the new Z - zach
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-names29aug29,0,5354352.story

======
Shooter
I'm so incredibly sick of these "Teletubby" company names.

Granted, I'm a cynical thirtysomething so maybe I just don't get it. Maybe
Ooma, Lala, Tinker, and Bebo ARE great company names. I don't think so,
though. I was rolling my eyes during the last internet bubble too, when
everything was iVomit.com and ePuke.com, etc. In retrospect, I think most
people will agree that most of those names WERE stupid.

Like the author of the article, I do realize that many of the 'great' names
have been taken and that the vast majority of domains seem to be held by
domain squatters...

BUT

I think that using coined, nonsensical names is extremely counterproductive.
Names should be memorable, easy to spell, and not have obviously bad
connotations. It's not that hard to come up with an original name that is
appropriate for what you're doing, is it?

I've worked as an entrepreneur/hacker, as a VC, and as a naming consultant. I
have a long list of unused names that I think would make great company names.
I think of new ones on an almost weekly basis. So many that I will never be
able to use them all in this lifetime. Maybe coming up with names is just a
skill that many hackers don't take the time to develop?

If a company is unable to come up with even a 'decent' name for what they
claim is their all-consuming passion, it makes me seriously doubt their
ability to ever properly execute their business plan. I consider it a failure
in the marketing department (and marketing is a core function, whether you
actually have a 'marketing department' or not.)

If your company name sounds like a Teletubby, maybe you should just hire (or
consult with) a marketing person before you launch...?

~~~
pg
> If a company is unable to come up with even a 'decent' name for what they
> claim is their all-consuming passion, it makes me seriously doubt their
> ability to ever properly execute their business plan.

My experience is that they're unrelated skills. Google is a pretty bad name,
actually. It has prestige now from its associations, but a misspelling of
Googol? If a YC startup came up with that name I'd tell them it was ok, but to
keep trying.

~~~
Shooter
I'll grant that they're unrelated skills, but I still think that it is a skill
that can be developed and a skill that is worth investing in. It may not be a
smart time investment for a hacker to cultivate that skill themselves, but it
is probably a good investment to hire or consult with someone that can come up
with a a quality name FOR them. [Business and marketing geeks need love to,
you know? There are branding geeks on every college campus too, believe me.]

I think the importance of a good name is often underestimated in the overall
scheme of things. Founders and VCs don't flinch too much when they spend
several grand hiring a legal specialist to draw up incorporation documents
(which is another story)...but it never even occurs to them to spend more time
and/or money on something that will likely have a greater impact on their
overall success, such as their identity in the marketplace.

I'd also argue that part of it goes to TASTE, PG :-)

> Google is a pretty bad name, actually.

I couldn't agree more. But they're one of the instigators of this current
naming trend (two O's, seemingly nonsensical), so they almost have grandfather
status. It's all of the followers that make these naming trends pathetic. You
don't get lost in the shuffle if you're one of the first. After a certain
point, it's the volume of the similar names that is comical. During the
electronics boom, everything was -etics this and -tek that, then you had iThis
and eThat during the late '90s. Now it's Teletubby names. Why get lost in the
shuffle? Why choose obviously bad names?

It's like a mother that goes through 9 months of pregnancy, X hours of labor,
and then names her kid Harry Richard McNuttsac or something because she was
too lazy to think it through or consult a book of baby names.

~~~
paul
What, in your opinion, are some "good" names?

The expensive, "professional" names are usually the ones that I find most
nauseating ("accenture", "agilent", etc).

~~~
pg
Adpinion and Fuzzwich are each about right for their respective companies.

------
staunch
The photo, with the awesome title of "Coder" is better than the story itself:

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-
names29aug29_jng4hwkn,...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-
names29aug29_jng4hwkn,0,2642363.photo)

