Developing your own product name – what really happens

Anja’s son took care of finding a name. He brought structure to the process: a degree in business administration, early experience with AI tools, and a systematic approach. Still, of the twelve favorites on the list, none of them were convincing in the end.

Except for one. “Byte”—spelled in English. Phonetically strong, short, memorable. But in German? Confusing. Too close to the technical “Byte” from the computer world. Too far away from the product.

In the end, the solution was a simple letter swap: “Byte” became “Beit.” B-E-I-T. One syllable, four letters, immediately associated with “biting.” And therefore with exactly what teeth are for.

What becomes clear in Anja’s process is something I see in projects of all sizes: Without defined criteria, naming becomes a matter of personal taste. What sounds familiar wins out. What sounds unfamiliar gets rejected. The decision is based on preference – not on function.

Anja describes it herself: Her team consisted of family members and employees. All of them were experts in their field, all of them closely involved with the product. What was missing was an outside perspective. Someone who asks other questions than “Does that sound good?”

The important questions in naming aren’t creative. They’re strategic: Does it fit the product, does it carry the promise? Is it easy to say, type, and find? Is the name protectable? Does it work internationally? Does it fit into a brand strategy that goes beyond the first product?

A turning point in Anja’s story came from an unexpected source. It wasn’t a naming team that asked the critical question, but the patent lawyer: “Is the name actually protected as a trademark?”

It wasn’t.

What followed: a three-month application process, a six-month opposition period, and conflicts over similarity with existing trademarks. For a startup with no financial cushion, this isn’t just a bit of extra paperwork – it’s a risk that throws the entire timeline off track.

Anja’s situation is typical for a startup: bootstrapped, no agency budget, everything done in-house. But the obstacles she describes aren’t unique to startups. I encounter them in small and medium-sized businesses just as often as in large companies.

The CEO who indirectly tells the team, “I have to like the name.” The product team that can’t let go of the internal working title. The marketing department that doesn’t get the naming proposal on the table until the product is almost on the market.

The rules are different: the budgets are bigger, the teams are larger, the processes are more formalized. But the mistakes are the same: starting too late, making decisions too subjectively, not thinking ahead enough.

At the end of our conversation on the Name.Macht.Marke. podcast, Anja raises a point that goes beyond her own story: What happens when the second product comes along?

“Beit” works for a toothpaste. The name evokes the idea of “biting.” That fits. But what about a mouthwash? An entire line of oral care products? Suddenly, the logic behind the name doesn’t quite hold up anymore.

This isn’t a failure. When it comes to the first product, hardly anyone thinks about the fifth. But this is precisely where tactical naming differs from strategic naming: If you develop the first name without asking how many more might follow, you’re creating a name that stands alone. With the next product, the whole process starts all over again – creation, research, trademark application.

The most expensive naming is the one you do twice. And that’s a long-term cost, because it requires double and triple brand and communication investments.