The concept denoted by the term “brand” includes many different aspects of a product. Considering that it evolved from the common practice of burning a mark into cattle for identification, it certainly contains the aspect of marks or symbols.
In his book, brand failures, Matt Haig
- Clairol’s Mist Stick curling iron launched in Germany: Mist is the German word for manure.
- The Silver Mist car by Rolls Royce was not a good choice for the German language market for the same reason.
- Rover connotes a dog; apparently, Land Rover had a problem selling cars; I am not sure that is still true. That connotation would obviously not bug me very much.
These are funny, if you are not the branding manager of the respective product. At Microsoft, product names, but also many feature names went through a process called a globalization review. A target language terminologist, who is a native speaker of the target-market language, reviews the suggested name for undesirable connotations in the target culture.
If the English name of a new feature is not to be retained in the target-language software, a so-called localizability review is performed. During this evaluation, the terminologist checks whether the connotations that the appellation has in English can be retained easily in the target language. They often try to find a designation that is very close to the original. If that is not possible, they will let the requesting product group know.
Here is a nice list of brand naming considerations offered by brand naming company, Brand Periscope, on their website:
- easy to say and spell
- extendable, has room for growth
- positive feeling
- international; doesn’t have bad meanings in other languages
- available; from trademark and domain perspective
- meaning, has relevance to your business
Sounds simple, but this terminology task is something that is forgotten very often. Product developers might have very little exposure to other cultures and/or languages and don’t think to include terminology or linguistic tasks or checks in their development process. When translators, localizers and terminologists point out a faux-pas, it often is either not taken seriously or it comes too late.