This document lists names of individuals. It then provides a summary of research showing that names can influence perceptions and expectations of people and brands. It discusses examples of famous people and corporations that changed their names to enhance their appeal and careers. It outlines lessons learned from name changes, including that preserving existing names can be awkward and anonymity-inducing. Short, unique names that convey a clear promise are most impactful.

1. Mary John Patricia Robert Jennifer Michael Elizabeth William Linda
David Barbara Richard Susan Joseph Margaret Charles Jessica
Thomas Dorothy Christopher Sarah Daniel Karen Matthew Nancy
Donald Betty Anthony Lisa Paul Sandra Mark Helen George Ashley
Steven Donna Kenneth Kimberly Andrew Carol Edward Michelle
Joshua Emily Brian Amanda Kevin Melissa Ronald Deborah
Timothy Laura Jason Stephanie Jeffrey Rebecca Gary Sharon
Ryan Cynthia Nicholas Kathleen Eric Ruth Jacob Anna Stephen
Shirley Jonathan Amy Larry Angela Frank Virginia Scott Brenda
Justin Pamela Brandon Catherine Raymond Katherine Gregory
Nicole Samuel Christine Benjamin Janet Patrick Debra Jack
Samantha Dennis Carolyn Jerry Rachel Alexander Heather Tyler
Maria Henry Diane Douglas Frances Peter Joyce Aaron Julie
Walter Emma Jose Evelyn Adam Martha Zachary Joan Harold
Kelly Nathan Christina Kyle Lauren Carl Judith Arthur Alice Gerald
Victoria Roger Doris Lawrence Ann Keith Jean Albert Cheryl
Jeremy Marie Terry Megan Joe Kathryn Sean Andrea Willie
Jacqueline Jesse Gloria Austin Teresa Christian Janice Ralph Sara
Billy Rose Bruce Hannah Bryan Julia Roy Theresa Eugene Judy
Ethan Grace Louis Beverly Wayne Denise Jordan Marilyn Harry
Mildred Russell Amber Alan Danielle Juan Brittany Philip Olivia
Randy Diana Dylan Jane Howard Lori Vincent Madison Bobby
Tiffany Johnny Kathy Phillip Tammy Shawn Crystal Thomas
Dorothy Christopher Sarah Daniel Karen Matthew Nancy Donald
Betty Anthony Lisa Paul Sandra Mark Helen George Ashley Steven
Donna Kenneth Kimberly Andrew Carol Edward Michelle Joshua
Emily Brian Amanda Kevin Melissa Ronald Deborah Timothy Laura
Marshall Strategy
July 2014
info@marshallstrategy.com
www.marshallstrategy.com
@MarshallStrat
Naming 101
Corporate Naming Lessons from Naming Experts

2. 2
© Marshall Strategy 2014
In 1973, psychologist Herbert Harari proved that teachers discriminate
against “oddly” named pupils. Teachers were asked to grade four
papers. The same papers attributed to “Elmer” and “Hubert” averaged
one grade lower than those attributed to “David” and “Michael.”
Other researchers have since noted the strong first impression that
names create, and have demonstrated the important role names play
in creating expectations about those they are attached to.
Why is this relevant to your company?
Research (and intuition) have shown that brands can have “loser”
names too, and that these can unfairly and negatively influence
perceptions of performance or potential.
Introduction

3. Many Hollywood stars
changed their names to
enhance their appeal and
career potential.
It would be hard to imagine
these famous entertainment
brands associated with their
original names.
3
© Marshall Strategy 2014
Famous Names
Issur Danielovitch
Betty Joan Perske
Allan Stewart Konigsberg
Norma Jeane Mortenson
Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra
Eric Marlon Bishop

4. Many successful
corporations have done
the same, adopting simpler,
more appealing names that
convey a unique promise in
memorable ways.
There are other
companies, however,
that are consumed by
trying to preserve equity
in existing names.
4
© Marshall Strategy 2014
Corporate Names
Research in Motion
Computing Tabulating
Recording Corporation
Datsun
BackRub
Anderson Consulting
TMP Worldwide

5. Professional firms and corporations are often consumed by efforts to
preserve equity in existing names. This becomes especially awkward
during mergers.
PricewaterhouseCoopers was such a tongue twister that it became
PwC, a meaningless set of initials. Despite management claims to the
contrary, initials are usually a ticket to anonymity.
5
© Marshall Strategy 2014
The Equity Debate
“Our decision to make this change now
is because over the last decade PwC
has continued to grow and evolve and a
concise consistent brand position makes
it easier for people to appreciate who we
are, what we do, and how we operate
across markets.”
—Moira Elms, PwC's global leader
of brand and communications
Sept. 10, 2010
Before
After

6. Name changes in the
corporate world can create
great opportunities, but are
more complicated than
applying for a new social
security card.
New names must be
accepted and supported by
employees, customers and
investors, and they can’t
infringe on the good will of
other names.
6
© Marshall Strategy 2014
Name Changes
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/apple-healthkit-taken

7. We’ve gathered some lessons learned from our naming work with
clients that include Disney, Westin and Adobe. These lessons can
help guide any organization through a name change.
• Individuals and companies have a choice in how they name themselves,
and how people think of them as a result.
• Some names can be perceived as losers and some as winners.
• Loser names can be successfully changed to winning names.
• It’s important to live up to a name’s conveyed or implied promise
• Short names are generally more impactful than long names.
• There is a fine line between unique names and those that alienate.
• The “equity” in ineffective names shouldn’t prevent you from developing
a better name.
Lessons Learned
7
© Marshall Strategy 2014

8. The main reason companies give for not opting to fix a sub-par
name is that they don’t want to lose their existing “brand equity.”
Advertising and promoting an ineffective name is essentially
throwing good money at an undesirable situation.
Consider our lessons learned as you migrate through the name
change process. It’s not easy, but to increase your organization’s
value, you may have to give up what’s not working in order to gain
something that’s better.
Conclusion
8
For more information
www.marshallstrategy.com
© Marshall Strategy 2014