How to conduct research on names
Name research is one of the most debated topics in branding.
Some teams view it as an essential safeguard before making a high-stakes naming decision. Others worry that research can favor safe, familiar options at the expense of more distinctive and memorable names. So where does the truth lie?
This and other questions about naming research are the focus of Heirloom’s second Indigo Paper: How experts test and validate brand names, now available as a free download.
This latest paper explores what experienced naming professionals and research specialists actually do when it comes to testing and validating names—and where industry best practices differ from what’s frequently happening in the real world.
Why we wrote this paper
Naming decisions carry an unusual amount of weight.
Unlike a campaign, tagline, or visual identity system, a name is often expected to endure for the life of a company or product. It must navigate trademark considerations, work across markets and cultures, support future growth, and differentiate a brand in increasingly crowded categories.
Given the stakes, research often becomes part of the conversation. But despite its widespread use, there is surprisingly little consensus around how name research should be conducted—or how much influence it should have on the final decision.
To better understand current practices, Heirloom surveyed 62 experienced naming professionals, researchers, and brand strategists with direct experience evaluating and validating brand names.
The result is a data-backed exploration of one of branding’s most misunderstood disciplines, featuring original survey findings, expert insights, and charts and visualizations that bring the data to life.
What you’ll learn
Inside the paper, you’ll discover:
The most common methods used to test and evaluate names
Where practitioners’ recommendations differ from what happens in real-world projects
When name testing typically occurs in the naming process
Typical timelines and budgets for name research initiatives
Common mistakes organizations make when evaluating names
How experienced practitioners believe research should—and shouldn’t—influence naming decisions
Perhaps the most interesting finding is that even among those who highly value name research, experts agree that it should merely inform naming decisions rather than make them. In other words, research works best as a decision-support tool, not a decision-maker.
Common misconceptions about name research
The paper also identifies several recurring mistakes organizations make when evaluating names, including:
Expecting research to identify a clear winner
Testing names without meaningful context
Asking respondents whether they “like” a name rather than exploring what it communicates
Over-relying on research results at the expense of strategic judgment
Failing to account for linguistic and cultural considerations
One consistent theme emerged throughout the responses: successful naming research is less about finding the perfect answer and more about identifying risks, uncovering insights, and making better-informed decisions.
A resource for brand builders
Whether you’re a brand strategist, naming professional, researcher, designer, or client-side marketing leader, this paper offers practical guidance for approaching name research more effectively.
If you’re currently developing a company name, product name, service name, or naming system, the findings provide valuable perspective on how experienced practitioners evaluate naming options—and how to avoid common pitfalls along the way.
Download the free Indigo Paper
The conversation around naming research often becomes polarized: research versus intuition, data versus creativity.
Our findings suggest the reality is much more nuanced. The strongest naming decisions happen when research, strategic thinking, creativity, and professional judgment work together.
Download How experts test and validate brand names to explore the full findings and discover how leading naming professionals approach one of branding’s most challenging decisions.
