Brainstorming techniques for generating names
What to do: working algorithm for generating names
Professional namers do not wait for inspiration — they structure the process in which the number of ideas at input guarantees the result at output. For one project, an agency usually generates over a thousand candidates, while a regular project requires 200-500 'raw' options, from which 10-20 are decent enough to reach the selection stage, 3-5 pass legal review, and one final name remains. If your brainstorm output contains 30 words — this is not few results, it is insufficient raw material.
The working sequence — Namestorm Method — looks like this:
- Identify 3-5 key characteristics of the project — not a list of advantages, but exactly what differentiates the product from direct competitors.
- Gather at least 100 words and associations related to these characteristics, without evaluation or criticism at this stage.
- Run the material through five types of names (Big Five) to avoid getting stuck on one format.
- Conduct a trademark check and linguistic expertise on all surviving variants, not only on the finalists.
- Make a decision based on pre-defined criteria, not on personal taste preferences of the team.
The key detail that almost nobody follows: the preparation phase before generation should take up to half of the entire naming time, not five to seven minutes of 'okay, let's just throw out some ideas.' A well-formulated task as a contradiction — 'the name should sound mature but not alienate the young audience' — yields a more precise result than doubling the number of participants in the room.
Brainstorming vs lexical field vs camouflage tasks
The naming process uses three generation systems, and they do not compete with each other but address different tasks.
| Technique | How it works | Strength | Weak point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brainstorm | Free group discussion, ideas are voiced out loud | Quick start, good for warming up the team | Ideas are averaged, participants adjust to the first speakers |
| Lexical field | Each participant independently collects words on a given topic, without discussion | Does not produce the effect of averaging, preserves diversity of solutions | Requires more time for material collection and structuring |
| Masking tasks | Participants are given a secondary creative task, diverting them from the direct 'think up a name' | Bypasses internal censorship and stereotypes, provides unexpected moves | Harder to organize, requires a moderator with experience |
For a fast commercial project with a limited budget, a lexical field is sufficient — it provides a stable volume without distortions of group thinking. For a startup where the name must sharply differ from the category, masking tasks should be added. Brainstorming makes sense to keep as a warm-up stage before the main work, not as the primary method.
Why brainstorming fails and how to fix it
Classical brainstorming has three built-in mechanisms of self-destruction. Production blocking — only one person can speak at a time, the others forget their ideas in the meantime. Conformity pressure — the group anchors on the first ideas that are voiced and then revolves around them. Social loafing — blurred responsibility: since everyone is suggesting ideas, nobody puts in full effort. Interestingly, creativity does not decline during the session itself, as many assume — this is an illusion of fatigue (Lucas & Nordgren, 2020), the quality actually drops due to the three mechanisms above, not participant burnout.
This is easily remedied: written generation instead of oral (brainwriting), prohibition on discussion until the final collection of ideas, and role separation — one person comes up with ideas, another filters them, but not simultaneously. Mind mapping for 5-10 minutes with proper moderation yields 50-80 verbal associations — this is already a decent basis for a lexical field.
Big Five: five types of names and what is actually registered
It is advisable to sort ready ideas into five basic types to avoid getting stuck in one register:
- Figurative — metaphorical names (Apple, Lime), appeal to an image rather than a function;
- Abbreviations — abbreviations (HARIBO), compact but poorly remembered without a history;
- Descriptive — a direct description of the essence (Luckypage), immediately understandable but legally weak;
- Name names — personal names, create an effect of closeness and trust;
- Artificial — invented words (Kodak, Xerox), maximally free for registration.
Numbers speak louder than any advice here: invented (coiled) names are successfully registered in 89% cases against 34% for descriptive ones. If a project plans to patent a name, relying on the descriptive type is a strategic mistake, even if it seems the most 'understandable' to clients. Meanwhile, portmanteau (compound words) are used by 23% of companies from the Inc. ranking. 500 is a working compromise between the recognizability of meaning and the originality of form.
How to choose a method for a specific project
The choice of technique depends not on personal preferences of the team, but on three parameters: category complexity, budget for legal clearance, and delivery deadline. For a narrow B2B-niche with a clear audience, a descriptive approach through the lexical field is often sufficient — here, accuracy is more important than originality. For a consumer brand that must stand out on the shelf and be registered without problems, artificial and figurative types are needed, which means more time for maskings tasks and verification of 3-5 finalists by a lawyer.
There is also a local specificity that many briefs overlook: 52% of Russians prefer names in Cyrillic script, and among them 76% are people over 55 years of age. If the project's audience is age-based, variants should be generated from the outset with Cyrillic spelling in mind, rather than translating the Latin name afterwards—sound and rhythm of the word are often lost in the process.
Why all this, if you can simply 'throw in some ideas'
Consumers are increasingly choosing a brand not by function, but by value alignment — 64% of buyers, according to Harvard Business Review, make their choice exactly this way. The name is the first carrier of these values, and a word accidentally born during a fast brainstorming session rarely has the power to convey them. Discipline in generation — not bureaucracy, but a way to bring an idea to a state where it withstands legal scrutiny, sounds appropriate in the right register, and aligns with what the brand wants to say about itself. It's cheaper to spend time on the word stage than to change the name after the brand has been registered on the market.
What to do: working algorithm for generating names
Professional namers do not wait for inspiration — they structure the process in which the number of ideas at input guarantees the result at output. For one project, an agency usually generates over a thousand candidates, while a regular project requires 200-500 'raw' options, from which 10-20 are decent enough to reach the selection stage, 3-5 pass legal review, and one final name remains. If your brainstorm output contains 30 words — this is not few results, it is insufficient raw material.
The working sequence — Namestorm Method — looks like this:
- Identify 3-5 key characteristics of the project — not a list of advantages, but exactly what differentiates the product from direct competitors.
- Gather at least 100 words and associations related to these characteristics, without evaluation or criticism at this stage.
- Run the material through five types of names (Big Five) to avoid getting stuck on one format.
- Conduct a trademark check and linguistic expertise on all surviving variants, not only on the finalists.
- Make a decision based on pre-defined criteria, not on personal taste preferences of the team.
The key detail that almost nobody follows: the preparation phase before generation should take up to half of the entire naming time, not five to seven minutes of 'okay, let's just throw out some ideas.' A well-formulated task as a contradiction — 'the name should sound mature but not alienate the young audience' — yields a more precise result than doubling the number of participants in the room.
Brainstorming vs lexical field vs camouflage tasks
The naming process uses three generation systems, and they do not compete with each other but address different tasks.
| Technique | How it works | Strength | Weak point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brainstorm | Free group discussion, ideas are voiced out loud | Quick start, good for warming up the team | Ideas are averaged, participants adjust to the first speakers |
| Lexical field | Each participant independently collects words on a given topic, without discussion | Does not produce the effect of averaging, preserves diversity of solutions | Requires more time for material collection and structuring |
| Masking tasks | Participants are given a secondary creative task, diverting them from the direct 'think up a name' | Bypasses internal censorship and stereotypes, provides unexpected moves | Harder to organize, requires a moderator with experience |
For a fast commercial project with a limited budget, a lexical field is sufficient — it provides a stable volume without distortions of group thinking. For a startup where the name must sharply differ from the category, masking tasks should be added. Brainstorming makes sense to keep as a warm-up stage before the main work, not as the primary method.
Why brainstorming fails and how to fix it
Classical brainstorming has three built-in mechanisms of self-destruction. Production blocking — only one person can speak at a time, the others forget their ideas in the meantime. Conformity pressure — the group anchors on the first ideas that are voiced and then revolves around them. Social loafing — blurred responsibility: since everyone is suggesting ideas, nobody puts in full effort. Interestingly, creativity does not decline during the session itself, as many assume — this is an illusion of fatigue (Lucas & Nordgren, 2020), the quality actually drops due to the three mechanisms above, not participant burnout.
This is easily remedied: written generation instead of oral (brainwriting), prohibition on discussion until the final collection of ideas, and role separation — one person comes up with ideas, another filters them, but not simultaneously. Mind mapping for 5-10 minutes with proper moderation yields 50-80 verbal associations — this is already a decent basis for a lexical field.
Big Five: five types of names and what is actually registered
It is advisable to sort ready ideas into five basic types to avoid getting stuck in one register:
- Figurative — metaphorical names (Apple, Lime), appeal to an image rather than a function;
- Abbreviations — abbreviations (HARIBO), compact but poorly remembered without a history;
- Descriptive — a direct description of the essence (Luckypage), immediately understandable but legally weak;
- Name names — personal names, create an effect of closeness and trust;
- Artificial — invented words (Kodak, Xerox), maximally free for registration.
Numbers speak louder than any advice here: invented (coiled) names are successfully registered in 89% cases against 34% for descriptive ones. If a project plans to patent a name, relying on the descriptive type is a strategic mistake, even if it seems the most 'understandable' to clients. Meanwhile, portmanteau (compound words) are used by 23% of companies from the Inc. ranking. 500 is a working compromise between the recognizability of meaning and the originality of form.
How to choose a method for a specific project
The choice of technique depends not on personal preferences of the team, but on three parameters: category complexity, budget for legal clearance, and delivery deadline. For a narrow B2B-niche with a clear audience, a descriptive approach through the lexical field is often sufficient — here, accuracy is more important than originality. For a consumer brand that must stand out on the shelf and be registered without problems, artificial and figurative types are needed, which means more time for maskings tasks and verification of 3-5 finalists by a lawyer.
There is also a local specificity that many briefs overlook: 52% of Russians prefer names in Cyrillic script, and among them 76% are people over 55 years of age. If the project's audience is age-based, variants should be generated from the outset with Cyrillic spelling in mind, rather than translating the Latin name afterwards—sound and rhythm of the word are often lost in the process.
Why all this, if you can simply 'throw in some ideas'
Consumers are increasingly choosing a brand not by function, but by value alignment — 64% of buyers, according to Harvard Business Review, make their choice exactly this way. The name is the first carrier of these values, and a word accidentally born during a fast brainstorming session rarely has the power to convey them. Discipline in generation — not bureaucracy, but a way to bring an idea to a state where it withstands legal scrutiny, sounds appropriate in the right register, and aligns with what the brand wants to say about itself. It's cheaper to spend time on the word stage than to change the name after the brand has been registered on the market.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
