When I was looking into this, I found two schools of thought, some people think the best thing is to have a unique name and logo, which gives no clue but is unique and rememberable.
Others think it's better to have a descriptive name and logo.
The first approach has the disadvantage of requiring more branding, while the second has the disadvantage of being less distinctive.
I think that the first approach works best if you have a marketing budget and plan to grow, while the second is much better for local businesses or lifestyle or niche businesses where organic search matters more.
VC-backed startups will probably do better with the first route, while bootstrapped side projects might work better with the second approach?
I think the conclusion of that first link is worth lifting into the thread here:
> In the end, I’ve never heard a founder of a successful company say the name of the company was an important factor in its success; similarly I’ve not heard of a name being the fatal blow. (emphasis original)
Solid, common-sense advice, and one reason I qualified what I said to "existing companies". For a new one, it doesn't really matter. But for Nike, it really is important to them that their name isn't descriptive.
Others think it's better to have a descriptive name and logo.
The first approach has the disadvantage of requiring more branding, while the second has the disadvantage of being less distinctive.
I think that the first approach works best if you have a marketing budget and plan to grow, while the second is much better for local businesses or lifestyle or niche businesses where organic search matters more.
VC-backed startups will probably do better with the first route, while bootstrapped side projects might work better with the second approach?