Decision-making in organisations
In order to agree with multiple parties about one name, a structured approach is needed.
Globrands’ approach brings clarity:
- We work in steps from broad to focused sessions.
- Final decision makers are involved from the beginning.
- This creates room for shared, relevant criteria.
- The result is a powerful name, which is easily accepted within the organisation.
Support is not necessarily obtained by letting many people participate in a decision, but rather by creating a clear procedure with room for interaction. This way, it will be accepted when a group of responsible delegates makes an understandable choice. Globrands has experience with many ways to shape the process.
input from the organisation
A new name may affect many people in the organisation. Sometimes, it is important to recognise the employees herein and to use their knowledge and creativity. By the use of an online survey (with questions such as: what values do you find important in the organisation, do you have an idea for a new name yourself), input can be obtained that is valuable for our briefing and creation sessions. This way the knife cuts both ways: employees are involved and we get valuable information.
presentation of the name selection
Once there is a shortlist, or even a final choice, it has to be ‘sold’ to stakeholders, such as a Board Of Directors or during an event to all employees. But even most managers are not used to responding to a name that was not there yet. Globrands has the experience and resources to let the audience become acquainted with brand naming in a nice way and enable them to respond constructively.
no naming contest
We advise against naming contests, for three reasons:
The core challenge in brand naming is to find out what you want to say. Naming contests don’t bring the answer.
The quality of the name proposals is not optimal. When 300 people each make 2 proposals, you get 600 proposals with a lot of overlap and little thought. When you let 2 people each make 300 proposals, you get more quality and variety.
You generate less support for the new name instead of more, because you say ‘no’ to all contributions except the winner, while they all come from the most engaged people. It is wiser to ask what people find important about a new name and take their answers into account when deciding. When the new name is made public, this is useful background information.