{"id":58802,"date":"2015-08-12T10:39:31","date_gmt":"2015-08-12T02:39:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=58802"},"modified":"2015-09-19T11:45:47","modified_gmt":"2015-09-19T03:45:47","slug":"the-abcs-of-googles-new-name-alphabet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/08\/12\/the-abcs-of-googles-new-name-alphabet\/","title":{"rendered":"The ABCs of Google\u2019s new name Alphabet"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"(Photo<\/a>
(Photo from Google’s official Facebook page<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

NEW YORK \u2013 What\u2019s in a name?<\/p>\n

Most corporate naming experts say Google\u2019s decision to reorganize its businesses under a new holding company called \u201cAlphabet\u201d is close to letter perfect.<\/p>\n

Because it is part of Google\u2019s corporate structure, Alphabet is not likely to become part of the lexicon like \u201cGoogling\u201d did; it will mainly be used on Wall Street.<\/p>\n

But the name Alphabet itself is simple and fits with Google\u2019s reputation as being \u201cuser friendly and elementary,\u201d says Tom Sepanski, naming and verbal identity director of branding firm Landor.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomething about it is so fundamental,\u201d adds Sagi Haviv, a partner at identity firm Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv. \u201cIt\u2019s a metaphor, just like any word can be created out of the alphabet, any concept can be realized.\u201d<\/p>\n

The move by Google highlights how important corporate names are. Google joins a long line of companies that have created quirky, confusing and sometimes hard-to-pronounce company names.<\/p>\n

Creating a corporate name \u2013 or changing it \u2013 is a delicate balance. A good name must convey what the company stands for. It should be catchy, too.<\/p>\n

But sometimes creative names backfire: When Kraft Foods spun off its snack food division and named it Mondelez in 2012, for instance, the reaction was not enthusiastic. The New York Post ran a headline that simply asked: \u201cMONDEWHAAAT?\u201d<\/p>\n

Other times, boring names are met with criticism. When HP named its research division Agilent in 1999, some critics deemed it too lackluster.<\/p>\n

Name game<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most naming experts agree that Google struck the right balance with Alphabet.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe think about a name as a first word in a story but not the whole story,\u201d said Nikolas Contis, global director of naming and branding firm Siegel + Gale. \u201cIn each case, it\u2019s what\u2019s the simple idea expressed through surprising language.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nikolas Contis, global director of naming and branding firm Siegel + Gale, said Alphabet ranks up there with Apple and Amazon and more recently, Uber. They infuse a simple word with key brand attributes.<\/p>\n

Amazon\u2019s name, for example, helped convey the company\u2019s aggressive growth plans from an online bookseller into an e-commerce powerhouse that could expand into everything from drones to cloud services, Contis said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was utterly simple and very strategic,\u201d he said. More recently, the name of ride-sharing app Uber \u2013 which basically means a supreme version of something \u2013 helped people understand that the company was trying to reinvent the taxi business, Contis said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe best names explode conventions and create new references points,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Alpha-bet<\/strong><\/p>\n

Google is staying mum about how they came up with the name, but CEO Larry Page explained key reasoning in a blog post.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity\u2019s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search,\u201d he wrote. \u201cWe also like that it means alpha-bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because the word is a commonly used word, Google likely invested heavily in it, i.e. buying licenses or companies with relevant trademarks, said Landor\u2019s Sepanski. Although some companies and brands can exist with the same name (think Dove soap and Dove chocolate), the simpler the name, the more likely that someone owns the trademark.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was probably a very expensive name,\u201d he said. \u201cMost real-world names are taken. It\u2019s hard for me to believe they could register the trademark without a lot of money trading hands behind the scenes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Building blocks<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the end, the name works because it fits in with Google\u2019s brand, said David Placek, founder of Lexicon Branding in Sausalito, California.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomething as fun and simple as alphabet works for them,\u201d he said. \u201cIf Bank of America created a holding company called Alphabet, I think it would be met with good deal of skepticism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Google says the new holding company will provide an umbrella for its separate divisions like Nest, which makes Internet-connected home appliances, and Calico, which is conducting cutting-edge health research, more independence. The segmentation of Google divisions under the Alphabet banner helps the name fit too.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey probably did need a holding company to open things up, and show what they\u2019re doing and where they\u2019re spending money,\u201d Placek said. \u201cSo they\u2019re getting a positive reception based on that, and also people just like the name.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NEW YORK \u2013 What\u2019s in a name? Most corporate naming experts say Google\u2019s decision to reorganize its businesses under a …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":58801,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[35],"class_list":["post-58802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-technology","tag-original","mauthors-mae-anderson","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58802\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}