Brand name creates an identity, that people might call it in a name and others get to know the brand by its name. Just like a catchy and appealing name has an emotional attachment on the part of buyers, I think the brand name matters at the end. General Motor’s “Nova” did not do well in South America until they changed its name (In Spanish, “Nova” means “does not go”!). Who would be buying a car that says it does not run, no matter whether it actually runs or not? However, the counter arguments also exist. Take the example of a not-so-appealing brand name that is successful in the market. One such example could be “pancha” (meaning “rotten”) Soap in Bangladesh. How come a name with bad connotation could be so much successful in the market?
It turns out that, while a brand name is important for aesthetic reasons, that is not all of the story. The other side of the coin says: “a Brand is what it does”. If a negative brand name could prove that the product contained inside is good and functional, people tend to associate “what it does” aspect of the brand more than associating the “bad meaning” of the name. A good sounding brand name that fails to keep its promises is nothing but a dead rose. Its name is rose, but it does not live up to its fame anymore.
So what is the answer to our question? I think a good sounding brand name should be paired with delivering superior functionality that it promises. That is how both sides of the coin would hold good. What do you think?