Runaway naming - a marketer's nightmare

The fact is, the marketing of stents, artificial hips, and implantable pacemakers has resulted in a blizzard of farfetched, fanciful product names.

Medical device makers, such as Zimmer, Stryker, Medtronic, and Guidant, face the common challenge of giving their hi-tech devices names that appeal to customers, avoid legal disputes, and don't make anyone laugh out loud.

It's a tall order, and a lot is at stake. A product name must appeal to the primary audience ­- physicians and caregivers who prescribe therapies, but also to the ultimate user,­ the patient, who is fast becoming more knowledgeable about healthcare products, better able to compare their
respective benefits, and more influential in their doctor's decision-making.

So how did hip technology become "Crossfire" and a heart positioning device become an "Urchin"? Many medical device makers are essentially engineers who happen to be in the healthcare sector. Their focus is less on caring than on
designing fast, shiny, durable things that happen to go into the body. Their marketing colleagues, who love to roll out a flashily named device, think that Trident sounds cooler than "ceramic hip," and that Vitality sounds better than what it is:­ a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

The problem is that names cost money to generate, register, protect and market. More names, means more expense and greater confusion across the distribution channel.

The answer is a naming approach that suits a company, brand, and users, requires a systematic look at the parent brand, marketing strategy, and market interests. Naming is an art and science, and when done well contributes to more compelling communications and business success.