Quote:
Originally Posted by CLT4
How are any of these any different:
Accenture
Xerox
Kodak
Wachovia
Pantone
Truist
Sony
Google
Ikea
Verizon
Nokia
^ None of these words really mean anything to people but after enough advertising, marketing, and delivering quality products we all think "Kodak" or "Verizon" is a word and have associations with these made up terms towards the brand.
|
Well, those examples aren't all the same. Nokia and Wachovia are the names of places important to the brands, and IKEA is an acronym. Google is just a misspelled form of googol (one followed by 100 zeroes) which was chosen specifically to indicate the nearly-limitless potential of a web search (or something like that).
Some of them are combinations of words--"Accent on the Future," "Veritas+Horizon," "sonus+sonny(weirdly)."
Some are straight-up made-up words, as far as I know. "Kodak," for instance. Maybe "Pantone" too. "Xerox" is interesting because it's based on the term "xerography," from the greek for "dry writing," but that word was also made up by the folks at Xerox. But at least they built a foundation for their corporate name.
I'm not exactly sure which thing "Truist" is going for. Is it "trust" with an i thrown in? Is it short for "altruist"? Is it supposed to suggest that they are the "truest," the "most true"?
There are lots of company names that are far more ridiculous. I used to work in tech, and you did that industry a favor by picking examples like Google and Accenture. Some of them are awful. There's even a website where you can buy company names and logos if you're looking to rebrand. "Digitegrity." "Sysqo." "Simplatec." "Tronomy." woof.
https://novanym.com/collections/soft...business-names
Truist isn't the worst name I ever heard, but it's not very satisfying or meaningful. I cringe when I say it.