I was speaking with some colleagues late last week about a meeting they sat in on with a (potential) new client. The client was planning to launch a new brand. “The what” (that the brand does or sells) has been omitted here to protect the innocent. Okay, let’s play ball! AU style…

- My colleagues and I agreed that the name was at best questionable. Trust me, none of us believes in political correctness but this name is such that it immediately excludes what could be a significant part of their target market , as well as the buyers, site / store owners, etc that stand between the brand and the consumer. For example, would you choose a name that purposely offends (for example) creationists? Probably not. As I understand it, the brand is supposed to be a new twist on 1960′s type themes (i.e., peace, love, understanding, etc.) Yes, I too like irony but it can certainly lean towards “die by the sword” pretty easily. Trust me, this one does.

Strike One… Right out of the gate they’re causing confusion, not being authentic nor consistent. Worst of all they’re going to upset some people somewhere. True, that’s always going to happen. But unless your image is anti-establishment then the risk of offending should be mitigated.

- The name is also a pretty common term. Granted they are trying to apply it to a different vertical but if you search for this term you’re going to get a lot of results. Sure, there are ways around this with various search manipulation techniques but why waste the energy? Let me put it this way, if you search for “Alchemy United” you are going to find *the* Alchemy United. No doubt, picking a name is tough.

Strike Two… A new brand is already a needle in the proverbial haystack, why make it more difficult to be found via web search?

- In the end, my colleagues got the impression that they didn’t get the gig. The brand supposedly went with someone with “more experience”. Fyi, these colleagues of mine are hardly under-qualified. Strangely enough the brand was hoping to be positioned as new, fresh, in favor of positive change, etc. In theory this sounded like a great gig but between you and I, I think my colleagues are better off waiting to see what’s waiting for them around the bend. There’s no sense getting trapped in the short term when the long term always has something better up ahead. You just have to keep your eyes open.

Strike Three… If they’re gonna talk the talk, then they better walk the walk. The greater the disconnect the more likely the consumer is to smell something fishy and spend their money on someone more legit. Does anyone really believe McCain stands for change?