A comprehensive framework of brand name classification

Abstract

Research on brand naming has recently taken center stage in marketing literature. This study formulates a comprehensive classification of brand names that incorporates frameworks from existing literature and current naming methods used by practitioners. A content analysis of the top 500 global brand names based on manifest content, across 11 product categories, was conducted to understand the current brandnaming trends. The results confirm extensive use of the promoter's name and place of origin (39.7 per cent of all brand names coded), compounding (34.1 per cent), abbreviations (18.2 per cent) and blending (7.9 per cent). Category-wise analysis indicates that certain categories, such as durables, follow the aggregate pattern of 61.5 per cent semantic word names, 53.0 per cent invented word names and 23.6 per cent non-word names. FMCG brands, on the other hand, show differing patterns because of disproportionately low abbreviations in the distribution. Further, χ 2 tests using equal expected frequencies of the three dimensions; semantic, invented and non-word names, showed that there appears to be significant differences in frequency between these dimensions. Practitioners may consider using these newly defined categories, such as semantically related acronyms, in creating distinctive brand names. This study also analyzes the use of sound symbolic names for brands.

Pazarlamada Ses Semboli̇zmi̇: Ses Semboli̇zmi̇ni̇ Araştiran Pazarlama Çalişmalarinin Üzeri̇ne Bütüncül Bi̇r İnceleme

“…Additionally, some studies used children as key informants to collect data (6.52%) (i.e., Baxter and Lowrey, 2011). Different from these studies, a couple of studies (e.g., Arora et al, 2015;Doorn et al, 2015;Lowrey et al, 2003;Pogacar et al, 2015) examined the existing brand names by using second hand data (19.56%). This indicates that more than half of the studies reviewed used homogenous sample groups like university students to discover the sound symbolism effects.…”

“…According to this typology, there are four types of sound symbolism: "corporeal sound symbolism", "imitative sound symbolism", "synesthetic sound symbolism", and "conventional sound symbolism". Corporeal sound symbolism refers to the specific sounds or intonation patterns that represent internal state of the speakers emotionally or physically (Arora et al, 2015). Depending upon the definition, involuntary uttered non-vocabulary sounds such as coughing or hiccupping can be given as examples of this type of sound symbolism (Klink, 2000).…”

“…Nevertheless, these studies have furthered the sound symbolic marketing studies. The interest towards linguistic characteristics (Arora et al, 2015;Lowrey et al, 2003) and sound qualities (Doorn et al, 2016;Pogacar et al, 2015) of US brand names originating from English have continued in 2000s. However, all of these studies do not directly emphasize sound symbolism, except the study of Arora et al (2015) and Pogacar et al (2015).…”

“…To create distinctive, memorable and inherently meaningful brand names, marketers and marketing researchers have intensively focused on the use of linguistic methods in recent years (e.g., Arora et al, 2015;Lowrey et al, 2003;Pogacar et al, 2015;Robertson, 1989;Nilsen, 1979;Vanden Bergh et al, 1987). In the direction of this interest, they have started to capitalize the findings of several linguistic and psycholinguistic studies to understand the role of linguistics on brand naming (e.g., Klink, 2000;Lowrey and Shrum, 2007;Yorkston and Menon, 2004).…”

Journal of Brand Management – Year end review 2016

“…In the previous Volume of the JBM (2015), research on brand naming and classification was prominent and included, for example, a comprehensive framework of brand name classification by Arora et al (2015), based on a review of the literature, as well as naming methods in use by practitioners. Brand as well as product naming comes to the fore again in Volume 23, firstly with Martínez (2016) undertaking a series of empirical studies that consider the use of the word 'great' when linked to product names under different settings, in order to determine whether the word and some of its synonyms, such as 'grand', are magical words that add value to a product --and if so under which circumstances.…”