What's in a Name?

The significance of a name is paradoxical—it's everything and nothing simultaneously. Once a name effectively conveys its meaning, it often fades into the background. However, the process of deciding on that name can profoundly impact perception. In marketing, even a subtle change in tone or phrasing can dramatically alter the message's intent and emotional resonance, influencing its reach and effectiveness.

In the realm of product naming, studies have shown that the choice of name can affect consumer perceptions of quality, value, and even taste. For instance, a study by Alter and Oppenheimer (2009) demonstrated that people perceive items with easier-to-pronounce names as being more familiar, appealing, and trustworthy compared to those with more complex names.

Case in Point

Consider the scenario of educational courses being offered across different tracks. Initially, each track had its own naming convention, leading to confusion among prospective learners and internal staff alike. To streamline communication and provide clarity, a new naming scheme was imperative. Our goals were clear:

1. Accurately describe the course content.

2. Convey the level of difficulty.

3. Maintain consistency across all tracks.

4. Provide a hint of the overall track and available subjects.

To gauge the effectiveness of the name change, we tracked re-enrollment rates—a metric reflecting how well the names resonated with students and their subsequent engagement.

The Solve

Recognizing the ambiguity of terms like "Intro" and "Advanced," we opted for a new approach. After collaborative brainstorming sessions involving department heads, we settled on a three-tier system:

1. Essentials: Signifying core skills and basic proficiency.

2. Foundations: Indicating foundational skills within the discipline.

3. Specialization: Denoting a specialized track or skill set.

The term "Advanced" was retired, as it failed to capture the nuanced nature of specialized skills. Additionally, we introduced internal subject naming conventions to provide further clarity on course progression.

Subjects within the Essentials programs were labeled as Foundations 1, while subsequent Foundations courses were labeled as Foundations 2 and 3, each with a topical identifier. Specialization program subjects were named based on their focus area, without implying a specific difficulty level.

The Foundations 1-3 naming convention served as a signal to students that these courses represented a continuum of skills necessary for further advancement within any specific track.

Results and Reflection

Three months post-implementation, the results were promising. Re-enrollment rates increased by an average of 18% across all programs, leading to a rise in the lifetime value per student. Moreover, confusion among prospective students and internal staff decreased significantly. Although quantifying the exact reduction in confusion is challenging, the newfound clarity allowed for redirecting focus toward other essential areas.

As we enter the fourth-month post-change, a new equilibrium has been reached. The names now convey their intentions effortlessly, allowing for smoother communication and quicker progression to deeper discussions without getting hung up on titles.

In conclusion, the journey to optimize product naming may seem trivial, but its impact on perception and communication is profound. By carefully crafting names that accurately reflect content, level, and track while maintaining consistency, organizations can streamline processes, enhance engagement, and ultimately drive success.