| name | placek-namer |
| description | Brand and product naming using the David Placek / Lexicon methodology.
TRIGGER when the user wants to name a company, product, feature, service, or brand.
TRIGGER when the user mentions "naming", "name for", "what should I call", "brand name",
"product name", "need a name", "help me name", or has an existing name they want to evaluate.
This skill guides users through strategic naming: defining the brief, mapping the category,
generating high-volume candidates across multiple territories, and evaluating with the
Lexicon rubric. Supports two pathways: creating a brand new name or evaluating an existing one.
|
Placek Namer
A strategic naming skill based on David Placek's Lexicon Branding methodology. Names are leverage, not decoration—this process treats naming as a strategic business asset.
Two Pathways
Pathway A: Brand New Name — Full process from brief to final candidates
Pathway B: Existing Name Evaluation — Evaluate and improve a name the user already has
Ask the user which pathway at the start:
"Are we creating a brand new name, or do you have an existing name you want to evaluate?"
Pathway A: Brand New Name
Stage 1: Strategic Brief (The Diamond)
Before generating any names, complete the Diamond Framework. Ask these questions and capture the answers:
What are we naming?
- Company, product, feature, service?
- What business event makes this necessary now?
WIN: What market outcome are you chasing in 12–24 months?
HAVE: What real product/company truths can you honestly claim?
NEED: What perception gap must you close?
SAY: What should people feel, assume, or expect when they first encounter the name?
Additional context:
- What category expectations do you want to break?
- What future products must this name stretch to cover?
- What emotional tone should the name create?
- What should the name never imply?
- Which markets and languages matter now and later?
Output a concise brief (2-3 paragraphs) summarizing the strategic load this name must carry.
Stage 2: Category Audit
Build the "anti-list" to avoid verbal gravity of the category.
Ask the user:
"What are 10–20 names in your category or adjacent categories? What words or patterns feel overused?"
Generate three lists:
- Category clichés — names/words the category overuses
- Temptation traps — words you're secretly tempted to reuse
- Banned words — words to exclude from round one
If the user doesn't provide competitors, offer to research the category.
Stage 3: Territory Mapping
Open 8–12 creative territories. Present these options and let the user pick 4–6 to explore:
- Core benefit
- Emotional after-state
- Motion/speed
- Material or scientific metaphor
- Geography or weather
- Nature/animal/landscape
- Navigation or direction
- Music or rhythm
- Sport or athletic flow
- Mythology or classical roots
- Craftsmanship/tools
- Opposites, tensions, or paradoxes
- Human qualities (trust, clarity, insight)
- Time or transformation
Explain: "Strong names often come from a territory adjacent to the product, not from the product label itself."
Stage 4: High-Volume Generation
Critical rule: Generate FAR more names than feels reasonable.
Lexicon aims for 1,000–1,500 names before shortlisting. For practical use, push for 200+ minimum across territories.
Generation approach:
- Generate names territory by territory
- Present in batches of 25–50
- User reviews each batch and marks: keep / maybe / discard
- Continue until volume targets are hit
The 5 Lexicon Patterns — use these to guide generation:
- Real-word transplant — Take a real word from a different domain (Impossible, Lucid, Outback, Scion)
- Coined-but-familiar — Build new words from familiar sounds (Pentium, Dasani, Febreze, Vercel)
- Compound promise — Fuse two units into a new promise (PowerBook, OnStar, CapCut)
- Concrete metaphor — Vivid image suggesting better experience (BlackBerry, Windsurf, Swiffer)
- Structural elegance — Win through word shape (Sonos, Navan — palindromes, symmetry)
Sound symbolism heuristics:
- B suggests reliability
- V feels alive/daring
- Z attracts attention
- X signals innovation
- Simple consonant-vowel structures process faster
During generation:
- Don't self-censor
- Don't explain names yet
- Volume first, judgment later
- Include weird/uncomfortable options
Present each batch as a simple numbered list. Ask user to mark:
Stage 5: Shortlist Development
From the kept names, filter through practical screens:
Quick screens:
- Can you say it easily?
- Can you spell it after hearing it?
- Does it create unwanted associations?
- Is it obviously blocked (quick trademark check)?
Present the survivors (aim for 20–30) grouped by pattern type.
Ask user to select 8–12 finalists for evaluation.
Stage 6: Context Testing
Put each finalist in real-world contexts:
- Homepage headline: "[NAME]: [tagline]"
- Press headline: "[NAME] announces [news]"
- Spoken aloud: "I'll send you the [NAME] link"
- Product mockup description
- Investor slide: "[NAME] is the [category] that [value prop]"
Names that collapse in context get cut.
Stage 7: Rubric Evaluation
Score each name 1–5 on eight criteria:
| Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|
| Strategic Fit | /5 | Can it carry the strategic load? |
| Distinctiveness | /5 | Does it stand out in the category? |
| Processing fluency | /5 | Is it easy to say and spell? |
| Surprise | /5 | Does it create energy? ("Surprisingly familiar") |
| Believability | /5 | Would the market believe it? |
| Story Potential | /5 | Does it give the brand room to grow? |
| Trademark Potential | /5 | Is there a path to registration? |
| Linguistic Safety | /5 | Works across markets? |
Passing threshold: 32+/40 (strong candidates: 36+)
Stage 8: Final Recommendation
Present top 3 candidates with scores, strategic rationale, story potential, risks, and brief trademark/domain notes. The user makes the final decision.
Pathway B: Existing Name Evaluation
When the user has a name and wants to evaluate or improve it.
Step 1: Understand the Context
Ask:
- What is the name for? (product, company, feature)
- What's the strategic brief? (WIN, HAVE, NEED, SAY)
- Who are the competitors?
- Why are you evaluating this name?
Step 2: Category Fit
- List 10–20 competitor names
- Assess: Does this name stand out or blend in?
- Identify if it falls into category clichés
Step 3: Rubric Score
Apply the 8-criterion evaluation from Stage 7. Score each criterion 1–5.
Step 4: Improvement Suggestions
If the name scores below 32, generate 5–10 variations that address weak areas:
- Try different territories
- Apply different naming patterns
- Adjust sound/structure while keeping core concept
Step 5: Decision
Provide recommendation:
- Keep as-is (36+ score, strong strategic fit)
- Iterate (32–35, fixable issues)
- Replace (below 32, fundamental problems)
The Golden Rule
Would a big competitor have been too timid to choose this name?
If yes, you're probably on the right track.
Quick Reference
The distilled rules:
- Name is strategy, not wordsmithing
- Name the advantage/experience, not just the object
- Look for "surprisingly familiar," not "instantly obvious"
- Let sound and structure work as hard as semantics
- Prefer distinctiveness over internal comfort
- Generate far more names than seems rational
- Separate creation from judgment
- Judge names in context, not in a spreadsheet
- Test for believability, not popularity
- Do serious legal and linguistic work
Example names and their patterns:
- Swiffer — concrete metaphor (swift + swiffer)
- BlackBerry — concrete metaphor + structural (alliteration)
- Pentium — coined-but-familiar (pent + -ium)
- Sonos — structural elegance (palindrome)
- Impossible Foods — real-word transplant (boldness)
- Vercel — coined-but-familiar (versatile/accelerate/excel)
- OnStar — compound promise (navigation + reassurance)
