When the good folks at Autoweb came looking for a new corporate name that would reflect their dominance in the global data exchange market, they turned to Tungsten Branding. Their recent acquisition of European-based Secorex made them the only provider of truly global data exchange and business automation. The new combined entity serves over 5,000 customers in 40 countries.

One of the challenges when naming an international firm is finding a name that is unique enough to pass all the trademark hurdles, (in this case the U.S., Canada and Europe) and yet still have some semblance of meaning. In the end, we combined the idea of “ubiquity” (Autoweb had become the de-facto standard for data exchange in North America) with the idea of being the “true” or genuine leader in the category. The result was Trubiquity… an international company known for integrating global enterprises. We were able to secure the exact matching .com domain name and the client created the corporate identity.

Their copywriter did a nice job of positioning the new name on the company home page with this statement…

Integrating, extending, all the time, everywhere… Trubiquity.

The official company press release had this to say…

“The name Trubiquity comes from combining the words ‘truly’ and ‘ubiquitous.’ It explains the company’s ability to offer customers a truly ubiquitous business-process automation solution, according to Mimi Miles, vice president of marketing. For several months, we’ve worked to create a new identity,” said Miles. “We chose a name that describes our unique ability to connect organizations and their business partners all the time, everywhere around the globe.”

So when looking for a corporate brand name with truly universal appeal, look no further than the bright minds at Tungsten Branding.

I wrote in an earlier post about the liquidation of CompUSA, and how descriptive/geographic names can be very limiting in the long run. While CompUSA seems to say “We sell computers in the United States,” names like Best Buy convey a key attribute/benefit… that you will always get the best buy on any current product, be it computers or DVD players or flat screen TVs.

The latest victim appears to be another literally named company, Linens & Things. Today’s New York Times reports that the company, which has over 500 stores in 47 states, is putting off $16 million in interest payments, and lost over $242 million in 2007. Is this simply due to the name? Of course not. But company names do speak volumes about the business, and ones like Linens & Things narrowly define the business to a product category, and make it appear more like a commodity based business than a brand.

People desire brands because they provide a sense of affiliation and identification. A dedicated core of customers will readily admit to being “Mac heads” but few would say “I’m a CompUSA addict.” It’s much more acceptable to be a fan of The Gap than The Dress Barn. One of the beautiful side benefits of a strong brand is that it creates demand, and therefore higher profit margins. So in light of the power of a well named, well conceived brand image, do companies go for literal/functional names? Most likely it’s due to the success of starting out well in one small niche and never taking the time to reassess and reposition the brand as it grow and evolves over time. Imagine buying Post-It Notes from Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing vs. 3M? Growth companies would be well advised to take the time to take stock in their image before they find their products, and associated company name, falling out of favor with the buying public.

Just a reminder that I will be speaking with Seth Godin tomorrow on “The Name Game,” on VoiceAmerica.com on the Business Network at 3:00 pm EST. If you would like to ask Seth a question, just post one here and I’ll do my best to fit it into the show. Or you can simply listen in and call in. If you miss the show you can also access The Name Game archives by clicking here.

For those who aren’t familiar with Seth, he penned the now standard bearing book entitle “Permission Based Marketing” back in the 90’s when everyone was treating the new internet media like it was TV… bombarding people with stuff they didn’t ask for. He was an early advocate for treating customers like people, vs. beating them over the head with mind numbing messages. This meant a fundamental shift in power… from that of the advertiser and TV stations, to that of the consumer, who now had more choice in the matter.

Seth went on to write a number of best selling books, including The Idea Virus, Purple Cow, Free Prize Inside, The Dip, All Marketers Are Liars, and his latest, Meatball Sundae… Is Your Marketing Out of Sync? Seth has a way of looking at things a bit differently, so this will be a rare opportunity to hear him share about just what it takes these days to stand out and get noticed.

After all, anybody that has the you-know-whats to name their company Squidoo is totally righteous in my book.

If you want to learn how to better brand your business, look no further than the current U.S. presidential race. Early on each candidate, wittingly or unwittingly, staked out certain “turf.” For Barak Obama it was the message of hope and change. For Hillary Clinton it was experience, and for likely Republican nominee John McCain, it was strength on defense.

Now here’s where it gets interesting and a bit messy, and where your business can benefit from observing others. Notice that John McCain was not doing well last year when the war in Irag was front page every day with negative news. He was for the “surge” when few else agreed.

His “stock” or his brand went down.

Then the bad news on the war front slowed down and he appeared to know something. His stock went up. Notice his position did not change, just the circumstances. Had things continued to deteriorate, he would not be the Republican front runner. He stayed with his strong defense message and when the situation changed, so did his fortunes. He tied his political stakes to his brand position of strong defense rather than adapting his message/position to try to fit the changing tides.

Barack was early on with the message of hope. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope.” Hope is his “thing,” his image, his brand. Barack owns hope in the minds of voters.
Hillary positioned herself based on experience. Her question to the voters was “Who would you want in office on day one?” That’s a good question if you are positioning yourself based on experience.

Then things started getting goofy…

Barack’s message of hope and change got some traction, gained momentum and he started to win some states. So what is the Hillary brand to do? They did what many companies do… they try to copy their competition. In a recent rally, Hillary attempted to upstage Barack’s hope message by converting his “Yes we can!” chant to “Yes, we will!”

That doesn’t work.

Fundamental rule of branding and positioning… you can’t take someone else’s position. You can’t outhope hope, or outchange change. In boxing they say “You don’t hook with a hooker.” That’s their strength. But you can work on redefining the conversation so it speaks back to your strengths.

It comes back to consistency. John McCain consistently said he was for the surge. Unpopular. Then things apparently calmed down and so he benefited from the perception of wisdom. Initially it looked like he blew it… that he backed a bad idea. But rather than switch his “brand” to fit the trend of the moment, he stayed true to what he believed and he came out on top for now. He could easily have bombed out with that strategy, but he stayed with what he felt was right and remained consistent. The “market” rewarded him.

Barack has remained consistent on his message of hope and change. The market has rewarded him as well.

Hillary is the most at risk from a branding perspective since she is not sticking to her core position of experience. She’s is venturing out to tackle Barack on hope and in doing so, is taking time away from building her message of experience, experience, experience. Experience might not be what the voters want most this election cycle… but that’s her strong suit and the one she needs to play. It’s up to the voters/consumers. Whether you’re a nominee or a business, it’s vital to stay true to what makes you “tick,” what motivates you and keeps you running. When you veer from that message, you come out of alignment, and your message doesn’t resonate as well with your consumer… be it a voter or a buyer.

So watch the election this year from a branding perspective. Who’s staying most true to their message, their core value and central position? Even if they don’t outright win, the candidate or business that stays focused on their strengths will rise in the eyes of their following. They may temporarily lose only to come back and fight another day. But to shift and change, to try be other than what you are, is to invite certain defeat both short term and long term. So if you’re going to go out, go out strong and meaningfully rather than weak and vascillating.

Define your position, build the importance of that position, and stay true to that position.

That’s good branding… politically or otherwise.

Seth Godin, internet marketer extraordinaire, will be our featured guest (Tuesday, March 4th 2008) on “The Name Game,” on the VoiceAmerica.com business channel at 12 noon PST (3pm EST). Join Seth and I as we discuss ways to transform the mundane into something remarkable. Seth, for those who aren’t familiar with him, wrote the book (or should I say “books”) on being remarkable, including Purple Cow, The Big Moo, Small is the New Big, The Idea Virus, The Dip, Free Prize Inside, and (my favorite title…) All Marketers Are Liars. Seth also penned the ground breaking book/concept “Permission Based Marketing.” This was back in the day when advertisers were still convinced the only way to reach their “target” market was to bombard it relentlessly with interruptive commercials. Seth’s career long approach to effective marketing has been one of building long term relationships based on inviting, entertaining, intriguing and engaging the potential customer.

If you haven’t had a chance to read Seth’s books, check out his latest one… Meatball Sundae …Is Your Marketing Out of Sync?” What a great metaphor for the way so many companies portray themselves… based on a little bit of quality, a touch of service, low prices, great selection, and on and on. It is very much like throwing every ingredient in a bowl and thinking it will taste good. Yet it is one of the most common branding issues, the failure to create a singular, recognizable identity.

So be sure to join us. If you read this post late, you can listen to the show on The Name Game archive page. If you can make it, join us Tuesday, March 5th and let’s cook up something that tastes right!

Sometimes a brand’s strength can become its biggest weakness. Take for example the incredible time share community we belong to outside of Orlando, Florida named Orange Lake. It was created by the same guy who founded Holiday Inns — and so no expense was spared when building it. It has its own water theme park on site, as well as a golf course designed by none other than Arnold Palmer. It’s also among the most requested time shares worldwide.

So naturally they wanted to expand upon their success and build other communities, in this case in Vermont and Wisconsin. The problem? The name! Orange Lake reeks of all things Florida. It’s perfect for the Disney area (Orange Lake is less than a mile from the mouse) But the name seems oddly out of place for Vermont or Wisconsin.

And it gets worse.

The new community in Wisconsin is at Lake Geneva. So the newsletter arrives in the mailbox announcing “Orange Lake, at Lake Geneva” which we are somehow supposed to know is in Wisconsin. Orange Lake Vermont, we are informed, is located at Ascutney Mountain Resort. These are all now part of “The Family of Orange Lake Resorts.”

The real question that should be asked is whether “Orange Lake” is so well branded, so famous and so ubiquitous, that you will always think of the time share community and not an “orange” “lake.” I’m guessing most of you have not even heard of this place, so you would most likely think of Orange Lake as a business or resort near a body of water in a sunny location.

There’s no easy answers here… I’m not a big fan of just using acronyms to solve everything. O.L.R. would be less misleading, but inherently meaningless. But the owners of Orange Lake might have considered developing separate brand identities for each community… ones that fit each region. Either that, or develop a new parent name over all the communities and then provide each one its own identity. Before Wyndham bought them out, Fairfield Communities did just that. They had Fairfield at Sapphire Valley and Fairfield Mountains and Fairfield Star Island and on and on. That made sense and provided a naming hierarchy that they could continually build upon.

But as it stands now, I just can’t relate to strapping on a pair of winter boots and snow skiing at Orange Lake.

Make sure to tune into this week’s The Name Game on VoiceAmerica.com. (Tuesdays at 3 p.m. EST, 12 noon PST) I’ll be speaking with Pete Warhurst, President of PODS, a company I named about ten years ago, and one that sold last month for approximately $430 million. So from 70 storage boxes originally called “Portables” to a worldwide brand named PODS (Portable On Demand Storage) that defines its category… now that’s a good demonstration of the power of branding.

And since PODS is now the Kleenex of portable storage, and the word many consumers use to describe the actual storage units (much like people ask for a “Coke” no matter what type of cola is served) we will be asking Pete questions specific to creating and owning a word in the English language. Just how feasible and/or reasonable is it, to set out to own a word such as Apple, or Amazon, or Monster? It’s certainly not for the fainthearted, but it is doable if the timing, product and service is right. And we’ll discuss just when all those things align perfectly, and when you can actually attempt to own a word. It’s the naming equivalent of hitting a bases loaded home run, but that’s not necessarily what’s needed to win the game. Sometimes a bunt is all that’s required to score. So listen in as we talk with Pete and talk about his meteoric rise of the past ten years, and the role that branding played in his success.

Today was the inaugural edition of the weekly Name Game on the VoiceAmerica.com business channel. This will be a weekly internet radio series that will provide all sorts of company and product naming tips and strategies, as well as having industry leading guests commenting on trends in the naming and branding industry. The show airs each Tuesday at 12 noon PST (3 p.m EST.) Today’s show featured Tungsten client TeamLogic IT, with company president Chuck Lennon sharing how their IT franchise went through the naming process and how they came to pick the final winner. Chuck also revealed some of the ways the name was subsequently incorporated throughout the organization (i.e. their company cars were wrapped with the logo, their newsletter makes a play on the name, etc.) To hear the show it its entirety, simple go to The Name Game page on VoiceAmerica.com and click the link to hear the show. Alternately, you can also click the light bulb on the top of that page and have the show download as an icon on your desktop.

Next week we will be discussing specific naming techniques as well as interviewing Pete Warhurst, founder of PODS, a past client as well. PODS went from a newbie start up in Clearwater, Florida just ten years ago, to a major corporation that was just purchased for $430 million. So that pretty much speaks to the power of establishing a dominant brand. So be sure to tune in each week or listen to the archives for ideas, suggestions, real life case stories and inspiration into naming, branding and growing a successful company.

Can a great brand name make a company successful by itself? Of course not, but can a poor name contribute to the slow and gradual death of a once formidable business… yes. And case in point is yesterday’s announcement of the closing of CompUSA stores. In this one name we can see two basic business naming mistakes…

1. Being product specific (computers)
2. Being geographically specific (the United States)

This type of company name can work if your core product never changes and your market never grows. But in the case of CompUSA, competition increased in computer sales while prices continually dropped. Ironically, one of the companies that bit into their business was Best Buy. Best Buy’s name, however, is based on a key attribute, delivering low priced merchandise. So their core products can change and evolve over time, as long as they remain competitively priced. CompUSA has the same problem as Books-A-Million. You are pretty much stuck with what you start with. Imagine forty years ago naming a company TypewritersAmerica or 8 Track Nation. As silly as that sounds, that’s what so many companies are doing when they chose literal, product specific names.

The geography issue is another stumbling block. I don’t know if CompUSA ever had plans to go into Canada or Mexico, but the name would seem to indicate otherwise. What makes it even more interesting, is that as a privately held company, CompUSA is controlled by a Mexican financier. So having both product and geographic identifiers in the name can prove very limiting.

Granted, some companies survive so long, that they overcome this potential company killing mistake. One example would be Radio Shack. Obviously the name has come to mean more than radios, and though not flattering, the word “Shack” has been tolerated by their faithful. But these are the exceptions and not the rule. Business has enough challenges without self created impediments. When choosing a business name, choose wisely. Select a name that can serve you ten to fifteen years down the road.

Meanwhile, avoid the urge to start a business named MP3USA.