Idiot wind: It's commentary like this that makes the whole naming and branding profession look bad. No, worse than bad: downright idiotic. This screed by "naming expert" Naseem Javed is appalling in the depth of its wrongness. At first we just threw up our hands (Where to begin?), but now we feel compelled, in the interest of our profession, to debunk this bunk point-by-point:

Ever heard, "Did you google today?" or, "Go try googling, and you will find it?" Watch out for this sort of lingo. To most people it may sound like free advertising for Google, but in reality it could be a nightmare for the corporation. When a company's name brand lends itself to "verbing" -- such as xeroxing, fedexing or rollerblading -- a code-red alert strikes the boardroom.

The idea that Google is suffering through "name struggles" because "google" is being used as a verb is not only laughable, it's just plain wrong. Google is the number one search engine, and it enjoys outstanding name recognition and name use throughout the culture. Quick, name a photocopier company. Quick, name a facial tissue manufacturer.

The idea that Xerox and Kleenex have been hurt by having their names incorporated into the language of daily life is absurd. On the contrary, becoming a verb is a holy grail of naming, because if you achieve this then you own the conversation in an entire industry. You become the leader, you set the agenda, you are the one that everybody talks about and that the competition has to address. Mr. Javed might think that InfoSeek or LookSmart are vastly superior search engine names than Google, but even though they were on the Net years before Google, where are they now?

As a result, finding great brand names has become a very scientific process and is no longer a creative exercise. Under the proper Laws of Naming, all issues are explored in advance so that a brand name will be engineered for durability. The days of accidental naming are over.

That's just pure bullshit, no way to sugarcoat it. This is the kind of nonsense that so many consultants dump on unsuspecting people in the name of passing themselves off as "experts." The only "science" involved with creating great names is perhaps having a little bit of the discipline of the scientific method, the discipline to find the best positioning for a brand and then to search for names that best support that positioning.

Anybody can become an "expert" at naming if they apply themselves to it and remain objective. Don't be fooled by anyone who claims to have science on their side – in fact, run from the room screaming and call the authorities. There are no "Laws of Naming," and you are much more likely to get a decent name from "accidental naming" than from Mr. Javed's "science."

Google has a big battle ahead of it, and the fights will take place on two fronts. Firstly, the company still has the best search engine to date and as a result acquired too much global attention too quickly. Secondly, as a borrowed word from the mathematical section of the English dictionary, the word "google" does have an alpha-structure that easily lends itself to cute verbalization. Right now, Sir Isaac Newton is simply googlified.

Let's see if we can even follow the "logic" of this argument: 1) Google is in trouble because it became too successful too quickly; 2) Google is in trouble because people can verbalize it, and they enjoy doing so. Hmmm....not sure what to say in response, because it's like being told that the sky is made of water and we're all going to drown – i.e. the ravings of a madman.

Although it may be too late in the game for Google to change its name, other startups certainly can learn from the search company's name struggles.

Did we miss a New York Times front-page story on this, or a Nightline special report about "Google's name struggles"? Just how are they struggling again? (See number 3, above.)

When a corporate name is heavily diluted and shared by hundreds or thousands of others in all kinds of businesses, it simply gets lost in the crowd.

This is the first truthful statement in this whole foul exercise. Unfortunately, it's really only lip service on Mr. Javed's part, as we'll prove now. Let's play a game of "Pick Naseem Javed's Company Name from Among these Jumbled Competitors":

NameSale Brandslinger Absolute Brand Brandscope Naming Systems Moore Names Blueprint Brand Strategies Brand-DNA(.com) Brand-DNA(.net) Nomen Nomenon Nomina Nomino Brand 2.0 Brand Doctors Name Sharks Brand Equity Namerazor Brand Institute Naming Workshop Namelab Brand Mechanics Nametag Brand Vista BrandForward Namexpress Brandico Nameit BrandLadder Name Development BrandLink NameQuest BrandLogic

Wise Name The Better Branding Company Not Just Any Branding BrandMaverick BrandPeople Brandjuice BrandSolutions The Name Works The Naming Company Namebase ABC Namebank Brandspark Namix Brandtrust Nametrade Building Brands Namington Core Brand Futurebrand Independent Branding Interbrand Real Branding Spherical Branding The Brand Consultancy The Branding Iron TradingBrands Brighter Naming Megalonamia Brand Evolve Namepharm Medibrand Namestormers Brand Fidelit

Give up? That would be ABC Namebank, the "original generic" naming company name. So when Mr. Javed talks about names that "get lost in the crowd," this is one area he is intimately acquainted with.

Sometimes a name crawls out of history, reflecting the great human toil of the founding fathers, but is somehow not suitable for present-day, technology-savvy culture.

Yes, companies now suffering with Biblical names, hopelessly left behind in today's "technology-savvy culture," include Apple and Virgin. Great names are often rich in history, stories, and layers of meaning – they are bigger than cultural trends or technological fads. Remember how just a few years ago companies that wanted instant tech-savvy cachet added a ".com" to their names? Well, most of those companies which survived the bursting tech bubble have quietly amputated that ungainly appendage since then.

Pitfall #5: The corporation does not own a trademark on its name or have an identical dot-com domain.

Unless you are an Internet company, having an "identical dot-come domain" is NOT a necessity. You can survive quite nicely without it, as long as you position your company website to score highly on Google searches. But then, Google's going through those pesky "name troubles" of its own, isn't it....

What is in short supply are successful, proven methodologies and highly reputable professionals with successful track records....Indeed, a company would be wise to ask its ad agency if it can produce such a professional with a track record; otherwise, the agency will only be picking names out of a hat.

And we would like to know Mr. Javed's "track record," only it's nowhere to be found on the ABC Namebank website.

Naming is a serious black-and-white exercise, and it should never be confused with color, design, logos and branding campaigns, which only become important after a name has been selected.

On the contrary, how a name looks, sounds, and feels out in the real world is extremely important, and the more contextual support a naming company can provide the client for names under consideration, the better the entire naming team is able to accurately judge whether a given name is successful at accomplishing the positioning goals of the brand.

A name is really a one or two word poem, and at best is a living, breathing participant of the culture, a vital part of the cultural life of society. It is NEVER a "black-and-white exercise," "serious" or otherwise. The challenge with a name is to express as many nuances of meaning, story and emotion as possible. To forget this is to end up with a cold, generic name that nobody cares about and that nobody can remember. A name such as ABC Namebank, for instance.

Actually, Mr. Javed's advice can be useful, if used correctly. Simply do the opposite of what he advises, and you should be just fine.

This piece courtesy of our sister site, Snark Hunting.