MAM

Naming that THING…again?

Published

21 years ago

October 6, 2004

Most corporations, when giving birth to a new product, behave just like parents jumping in frenzy in a maternity ward. This typical hysterical hoopla of the incubation wing is often replaced by a subtler, cubicle behavior and at times becomes a subdued. Dilbertish style revolution. Objects do fly, even though they are memos or sometimes, sharp yet harmless, foamy projectiles. Everyone shares the excitement and all fights are well intentioned. Everyone wants a successful launch. There is always a good feeling and everyone is happy.

One, naming that new THING is the most critical and extremely controversial part of the innovation cycle. Every participant passionately displays sets of arguments and opinions, molding and changing each time in every other round, while that new object of attention behaves almost like an alien, projecting strange vibes, lights, and humming sounds. This isn’t a sci-fi project, ask any technology company or a bank creating a new credit card, they each have similar out-of-body, extra-terrestrial types of experiences. This is normal when logic leaves the body and the brain drifts in creative space. There’s nothing to fear, these attacks of mild lunacy is what ad agencies are made of. Wow, this means there is now an open season for hunting down a new name.

Without a name, there is no calling-device. No customer will ever refer to it or even talk about it. Basically, no name, no story. No story no ad-campaign. No ad-marketing no business. Get it? It seems what to call that thing is the most critical issue behind this total incubation strategy, startling romance with the initial idea leading all the way to final delivery. So push. The reason why corporations want to do this internally is no different than having mother-in-laws team up with distant relatives to name a set of twins. But wait, this time, let’s just go and get them some external naming. Here, we will send in the clowns. Big and small teams are hired to pool names. Thousand of choices later, that thing become the thing. Now we’re getting somewhere.

No matter what the complexity of the innovation or what the size of corporation, this naming issue always has four critical sides. Only questions?
1-Character: What is this new thing? How and why does it work and why will it change or overcome a hurdle? What are its characteristics and possible personalities?
2-Customers: Who are they and why will they buy it? What are they thinking and how will you attract them? Why will they respond to your name and grasp this innovation?
3-Competition: How will they attack? What are the other confusing names in the market place? How do you get a unique and a distinct name identity to secure a market position?
4-Delivery: How will you tell your side of the story? How will you deliver this message?

What must they remember in a name? Why should you protect the name?

This may sound simple and almost boring, so let’s go to the danger zone. Most new innovations simply die of quick exhaustion as they fail to deliver the precise message of their story. Either the lack of clarity in a name or sending multiple messages that confuse customers will do just that. Sometimes, this is done to please different interests and sometimes-in total oblivion to the customer’s perceptions and realities. Promoting totally irrelevant aspects of the name identity or the missing of a distinct name altogether without any logical association with the product itself will never help.

The general perception that expensive branding will always fix the entire name image problem is way off line. Branding is an art; however, the term is loosely used by far too many as a cure for all. Without a proper placement of a clear name identity and a sophisticated naming strategy, branding is a lost cause. A buyer not only needs to understand the message but also must remember the name and be happy to talk about it. Otherwise, the entire promotion is just an expense. This is how popularity is lost, case studies are shelved, agencies changed and nothing gained.

True, there are thousands of great success stories, and we always start with Yahoo, Ebay, and Amazon of the recent past or Microsoft, Intel of distant past. IBM, GM of the hinder years. Ah, what about the millions that came so close to success before they ran out money, who just couldn’t finish telling their entire story?

Telling stories is what advertising and branding does. Some are good, but are more than often plain stories, wrapped only in a short-lived promotional hoopla and without properly structured memory recall devices. Is this the reason why all car commercials look the same? Why are almost all logos and names so similar? The toll of innovation on the human mind is enormous as every second; some new product is being introduced with a spinning logo and a weird name. Does it matter if it’s coming from some foreign, unpronounceable land? Irrespective, it’s sitting in front on our screens. The bottom line is, telling an expensive story at the cost of a poor name identity is a disaster in the making. The dilution of name identity is the number-one killer of good innovation, corporate images, websites or new services.

The global competition is forcing executives for a deeper understanding of cyber-branding as an art of telling stories, rather than plastering billboards. The power of e-commerce can only be harnessed by designing digital name identities, ready to circumnavigate without language or trademark problems. The reason why these issues aren’t being discussed in detail at branding conferences or being taught at major B-Schools is still a mystery.

If a good name only costs a fraction of the whole storyboard, then why is it ignored? A corporation will clearly lose its navigation without a solid naming strategy designed under professional guidelines.

Today there are five critical questions that management must ask itself:

Is the name global? Prove it.
Is the name yours? Own it.
Is the name with an identical Dot Com? Show it.
Is the name easy? Say it.
Is the name in trouble? Change it…

Ah, so would this mean naming that thing…again?

Related Topics:Amazon B-Schools Dot Com eBay Yahoo

Up Next

CLASH OF THE TITANS – WHEN SEARCH ENGINES COLLIDE

Don't Miss

Free Branding Services?

Click to comment

Brands

Netflix India names Rekha Rane director of films and series marketing

Streaming giant bets on a seasoned marketer who helped build Amazon and Netflix into household names

Published

4 weeks ago

February 9, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

MUMBAI: Netflix has put a proven brand builder at the helm of its films and series marketing in India, naming Rekha Rane as director in a move that signals sharper focus on audience growth and cultural cut-through in one of its most hotly contested markets.

Rane steps into the role after seven years at Netflix, where she has quietly shaped how the platform sells stories to India. Her latest promotion, effective February 2026, crowns a run that spans brand, slate and product marketing across originals, licensed content and new verticals such as games.

A strategic marketing and communications professional with roughly 15 years’ experience, Rane has spent much of her career building technology-led consumer businesses and new categories, notably e-commerce and subscription video on demand. She was part of the early push that introduced Amazon.in, Prime Video and Netflix to Indian homes, then helped turn them into everyday brands.

At Netflix, she most recently served as head of brand and slate marketing for India from March 2024 to February 2026, leading teams across media and marketing for global and local content portfolios. Before that, as manager for original films and series marketing, she led IP creation and go-to-market strategy for titles including Guns and Gulaabs, Kaala Paani, The Railway Men* and The Great Indian Kapil Show, spanning both binge and weekly-release formats.

Her earlier Netflix roles covered product discovery and promotion in India and integrated campaign strategy to drive conversations around the content slate, product awareness and brand-equity metrics.

Before Netflix, Rane logged more than three years at Amazon in brand marketing roles in Bengaluru. There she handled national and regional campaigns for Amazon.in, worked on customer assistance programmes in growth geographies and contributed to the go-to-market strategy for the launch of Prime Video India.

Her career began well away from streaming. At Reliance Brands in Mumbai, she worked on retail marketing for Diesel and Superdry. A stint at Leo Burnett saw her work on primary research for P&G Tide, mapping Indian shoppers’ paths to purchase. Earlier still, at Orange in the United Kingdom, she rose from sales assistant to store manager, running a team and owning monthly P&L for a retail outlet.

The arc is telling. As global streamers fight for attention in a crowded Indian market, executives who understand both mass retail behaviour and digital habit-building are prized. Rane’s career sits at that intersection.

For Netflix, the bet is simple: in a market spoilt for choice, sharp marketing can still tilt the screen. And with Rane now leading the charge, the streamer is signalling it wants not just viewers, but fandom.

Brands

Orient Beverages pops the fizz with steady Q3 gains and rising profits

Kolkata-based beverage maker reports stronger revenues and profits for December quarter.

Published

4 weeks ago

February 9, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

MUMBAI: A fizzy quarter with a steady aftertaste that’s how Orient Beverages Limited, the company that manufactures and distributes packaged drinking water under the brand name Bisleri closed the December 2025 period, as the Kolkata-based drinks maker reported improved revenues and a healthy rise in profits, signalling operational stability in a competitive beverage market.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2025, Orient Beverages posted standalone revenue from operations of Rs 39.98 crore, up from Rs 36.42 crore in the previous quarter and Rs 33.53 crore in the same quarter last year. Total income for the quarter stood at Rs 42.24 crore, reflecting consistent demand and stable pricing across its beverage portfolio.

Profit before tax for the quarter came in at Rs 3.47 crore, a sharp improvement from Rs 1.31 crore in the September quarter and Rs 0.39 crore a year ago. After accounting for tax expenses of Rs 0.79 crore, the company reported a net profit of Rs 2.68 crore, nearly three times the Rs 0.99 crore recorded in the preceding quarter.

On a nine-month basis, the momentum remained intact. Revenue from operations for the period ended December 31, 2025 rose to Rs 117.66 crore, compared with Rs 106.95 crore in the corresponding period last year. Net profit for the nine months climbed to Rs 5.51 crore, more than double the Rs 2.18 crore reported in the same period of the previous financial year.

The consolidated numbers told a similar story. For the December quarter, consolidated revenue from operations stood at Rs 45.06 crore, while profit after tax came in at Rs 2.06 crore. For the nine-month period, consolidated revenue touched Rs 133.57 crore, with net profit of Rs 4.49 crore, underscoring the group’s improving profitability trajectory.

Operating expenses remained largely controlled, with cost of materials, employee benefits and other expenses broadly aligned with revenue growth. The company continued to operate within a single reportable segment beverages simplifying its cost structure and reporting framework.

The unaudited financial results were reviewed by the Audit Committee and approved by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 7 February 2026. Statutory auditors carried out a limited review and reported no material misstatements in the results.

In a market where margins are often squeezed by input costs and competition, Orient Beverages’ latest numbers suggest the company has found a reliable rhythm not explosive, but steady enough to keep the fizz alive.

MAM

Washington Post CEO exits abruptly after newsroom cuts spark backlash

Leadership change follows layoffs, protests and a bruising battle over trust.

Published

4 weeks ago

February 9, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

MUMBAI: When the presses are rolling but patience runs out, even the editor’s chair isn’t safe. The Washington Post announced on Saturday that its chief executive and publisher Will Lewis is stepping down with immediate effect, bringing a sudden end to a turbulent two-year tenure marked by financial strain, newsroom unrest and public backlash.

Lewis’s exit comes just days after the Bezos-owned newspaper announced sweeping job cuts that triggered protests outside its Washington headquarters and a wave of anger from readers and staff. While newspapers across the US are grappling with shrinking revenues and digital disruption, Lewis’s leadership had increasingly come under fire for how those pressures were handled.

The Post confirmed that Jeff D’Onofrio, a former Tumblr CEO who joined the organisation last year as chief financial officer, has taken over as CEO and publisher, effective immediately. In an email to staff, later shared by reporters on social media, Lewis said it was “the right time for me to step aside.”

The leadership change follows the announcement of large-scale redundancies earlier this week. While the Post did not officially confirm numbers, The New York Times reported that around 300 of the paper’s roughly 800 journalists were laid off. Entire teams were dismantled, including the Post’s Middle East bureau and its Kyiv-based correspondent covering the war in Ukraine.

Sports, graphics and local reporting were sharply reduced, and the paper’s daily podcast, Post Reports, was suspended. On Thursday, hundreds of journalists and supporters gathered outside the Post’s downtown office in protest, calling the cuts a blow to public-interest journalism.

Former executive editor Marty Baron described the moment as “among the darkest days in the history of one of the world’s greatest news organisations.”

Lewis defended his record in his farewell note, saying “difficult decisions” were taken to secure the paper’s long-term future and protect its ability to publish “high-quality nonpartisan news”. But his tenure coincided with growing scrutiny of editorial independence at the Post.

Owner Jeff Bezos faced criticism for reining in the paper’s traditionally liberal editorial page and blocking an endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 US election. The move was widely seen as breaking the long-standing firewall between ownership and editorial decision-making.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, around 250,000 digital subscribers cancelled their subscriptions after the paper declined to endorse Harris. The Post reportedly lost about $100 million in 2024 as advertising and subscription revenues slid.

While the wider newspaper industry continues to battle declining print advertising and the pull of social media, some national titles have stabilised. Rivals such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have managed to build sustainable digital businesses, a turnaround that has so far eluded the Post despite its billionaire backing.

As Jeff D’Onofrio steps into the role, the challenge is stark, restore confidence inside the newsroom, win back readers who walked away, and prove that one of America’s most storied newspapers can still find its footing in a brutally competitive media landscape.