Names v/s Übermeters

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the thing I have been doing the past few months is comparing names and trying to understand which names work better than others based on certain Übermeters I've come up with. (Based on experience, gut feel and inexact memory sciences.)

One of the things that struck me about this is the possible question people might pose to themselves about whether right the way to come up with good names is to sit down and anally follow the Übermeters I have come up with? Not. These parameters I have so helpfully thought of are not meant to help you throw up names. What they are meant to do is help you understand which of the names you, or your naming company, have created will work.

My craft of enduringly naming brands is about sitting yourself down with your list of names and using the parameters to understand which of the names you have thought of will be memorable. The way to do it is to first think of names and then evaluate them against the Über-meters. (Not sit yourself down with the rule book and try and churn out names by the book.)

For instance, don't tell your blank sheet of paper you need names with alternating stop-start sounds, euphonious vowels and consonant combinations and good back stories, to name three of the most important qualities good names must possess. Do that and you'll be left with a bunch of hide-bound rubbish. The way to do it is to have fun with names, minus the rules. That done, evaluate/edit the list, seriously, against the parameters to end up with brand names which will register, better.

It's a bit like writing, actually. As David Ogilvy said, write with passion and edit carefully. Or something like that. The point is not about exactly what he said but what he meant by it. Kinda like coming up with good names, without getting inflexible about things. Get what I mean? Good. go play. Or, better still, come to me.