Thoughts on Naming: The Needle in the Haystack

Some years ago, during dinner with a friend, we were discussing my family’s obsession with naming. The Kanes named Christmas trees (Jubilation T. Pinecone, Penelope Tree) and cars (the Big Green Lima Bean); we even had an inflatable raft called the Ackley Kid—on which my younger sister nearly floated out to sea accidentally, courtesy of yours truly (another story)—which honored a character from A Catcher in the Rye. There were also multiple sets of nicknames (not individual nicknames; sets of nicknames) for me and each of my seven siblings. (One of mine was “Snowball.”)

Naming is one of the most enjoyable—and in certain respects, mysterious—parts of Libretto’s practice. Our naming work reflects an approach that is equal parts systematic and serendipitous. While themes for fundraising campaigns have become something of a niche offering for us—we do more of them than pretty much anyone else—Libretto has named everything from a children’s book festival (Hubbub) and a retired dancer’s pastry-making business (Patisserina) to Sun Microsystems’ version of UNIX (Solaris). Our success in this highly specialized area is due in huge part to the team of Librettists who have collectively put thousands of hours over the years into the quest for the perfect name.

Here are a few observations about how a name (the proverbial needle) gets extracted from the haystack of the English language.

From brief to list
We launch our “namestorming” process with a creative brief that describes what the client is hoping to accomplish via their campaign, product, or service. If we’ve conducted discovery interviews, presented findings, or developed messaging for the client, those assets are shared with our team of current (and sometimes former) Librettists.

While there’s no formula for coming up with a strong list of names, I find certain techniques helpful:

• I usually generate my list with paper and pen—one of the few aspects of my job where I prefer not to use a computer. Scribing a list just feels more tactical and contemplative than typing one.
• I often find my mind most open to generating names during moments that are liminal or transitional—in particular, waking up, falling asleep, showering, and driving. For whatever reason, I find it easier to free-associate when performing an activity that provides a base level of distraction while consuming a minimal amount of my attention. (When a name bubbles up at one of those times, it’s absolutely essential to write it down; there are few feelings worse than realizing that a potentially viable name has floated away.)
• I think a lot about left-brain and right-brain levers, especially with campaign themes. When evaluating a potential theme I ask myself, “Does this have the potential to resonate both emotionally and rationally?” This is a key criterion, since virtually every campaign has a quantitative and qualitative dimension to it—and virtually every donor is motivated by a matrix of subjective and objective factors.

I sometimes say a successful name or theme has to invoke both “the thing” and something bigger than said thing. For example, Motion to Lead—the campaign theme we created for Northwestern University’s School of Law—combines a familiar legal term (a motion) with something slightly unexpected (leadership). It’s also a phrase that lends itself well to being spun in multiple ways—leadership gifts, the forward motion of the institution, innovation in law education, disruption of the status quo, an action-oriented approach, etc. When a word or phrase easily lends itself to multiple interpretations, it’s a sign that it may be a strong contender.

From multiple lists to one
About a week after the brief has been circulated, our team meets to review the initial round of candidates. Over the years, we’ve developed a set of guidelines and basic ground rules for these critical discussions that have held us in good stead.

• A “yes, and” approach works best. Most of the candidates that are served up aren’t going to make the final list. However, a name may contain a germ of an idea that takes you into interesting, novel territory. For example, Hebrew SeniorLife is a top provider in senior care and a leader in reimagining the experience of aging. While noodling on campaign theme ideas related to “age,” I thought of the phrase “Age of Aquarius,” which alluded (albeit somewhat clumsily) to the Baby Boomers who rely on and support HSL. In trying to modify the phrase to invoke the idea of seniors living their best lives, we landed on Age of Opportunity, which ultimately became the theme of their $125 million fundraising effort.
• As I mentioned earlier, I have seven brothers and sisters, which may have something to do with why I find that eight people is a good target size for a naming evaluation session. Multiple perspectives are shared, people advocate passionately and eloquently for certain names (theirs or their colleagues’), and you get a built-in reality check that mirrors the scrutiny the final list of candidates will receive when presented to the client.
• If two people on the team come up with the same candidate, it’s a sign that the theme may have the potential to be a finalist.
• At the end of the first session, we cast votes for the candidates that resonate most with us. We recently began anonymously submitting those votes after the meeting, which helps counter the temptation to gravitate toward groupthink.

About a week later, we reconvene to review additional candidates that have surfaced since the Round One review, and to revisit Round One finalists. We also use the intervening time to Google the initial candidates to see whether other organizations may be using them as part of an ongoing campaign. (While learning that a favorite candidate has been appropriated for someone else’s campaign can be a tad deflating, it’s better to identify that conflict sooner rather than later.)

That second session is key—in part, because it eliminates the pressure to have all your ideas ready to go after a single meeting. Sitting with a list for a few days also provides additional opportunities for our initial ideas to simmer, so we can determine whether they still feel fresh after a few days away from them. (Given that you may be asking a client to live with a campaign theme for three to five years—or a name for even longer—engaging in that due diligence is critical.)

We generally emerge from the second session with a relatively clear idea of which candidates will subsequently be shown to the client. While the subset of Librettists who will be making the actual presentation has the ultimate say over what gets presented, the list of finalists benefits immeasurably from the cumulative efforts of those who have participated in the namestorming process.

What happens after that—from presenting the list with the client to the implementation of the chosen theme—will be discussed in a subsequent article.