Naming a Photographic Company or Product

[cliveh]

I understand that the name KODAK was a word that originally meant nothing, but was formulated by George Eastman one day, when playing an anagram game with his mother. He thought the letters were strong and decisive. A brilliant bit of marketing for its time, but wondered if others could come up with an imaginary name for a photographic product or service?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm not very imaginative so I'm out... but the use of yellow by Kodak violates some "old and well-established rule of marketting" that belives that yellow is a very ineffective color to use.

 

[cliveh]

I'm not very imaginative so I'm out... but the use of yellow by Kodak violates some "old and well-established rule of marketting" that belives that yellow is a very ineffective color to use.

Tell that to Vincent Van Gogh.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ya, color theory is an interesting thing. It works "both ways" it seems. Both research and practice are confusing.

 

[cjbecker]

I would make it black and white and call it ilford. O yea, somebody already did that.

 

[Worker 11811]

The problem I see is that neologisms are the norm, today, rather than the exception.

Back in Eastman's day, newfangled, made-up words were not so common. Even the invented words that were used made some kind of sense. "Dagurerrotype," for instance. "Photograph," even.

Nowadays, we have names like "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" that are so commonly used that we use them as household words. Names like "Nutri-Sweet" or "Truvia" just blend into the background.

Even acronyms ("scuba" = "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus") or initialisms ("ATM" = "Automatic Teller Machine") can be so common as to be meaningless.

It's not like the old days when a good strong name could make a company. Today, everybody's doing it. In fact, I'd say that it's now the other way around. The reputation of the company can redefine the word. (e.g. "Google" which should be "googol.")

I think the best bet would be to use a name as part of the company brand like "Jones Photographic Company."

 

[batwister]

Since the trend with film companies is a four letter, phonetic nonsense name - even Lomo - children usually have the best minds for this. What about PLOP? Nobody forgets a good plop.

 

[cliveh]

The reputation of the company can redefine the word. (e.g. "Google" which should be "googol.")

I agree "Googol" is much better.

 

[batwister]

I think the argument there would be that the 'le' gives it more credibility in the English language. It sounds more like a common word that way.

 

[cliveh]

OK, here is mine for a new camera - The ZEBOX.

 

[Worker 11811]

I think the argument there would be that the 'le' gives it more credibility in the English language. It sounds more like a common word that way.

I think it was misspelled for two reasons:

1) Neologisms can be trademarked. That's why you see names like "Blu-Ray." It's easier to trademark as a unique word.

2) They reduced the word to the lowest common denominator of the public's intelligence. A smaller portion of the people know how to spell the word "googol" much less know what it means.