Naming a Photographic Company or Product

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by cliveh, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,537
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I understand that the name KODAK was a word that originally meant nothing, but was formulated by George Eastman one day, when playing an anagram game with his mother. He thought the letters were strong and decisive. A brilliant bit of marketing for its time, but wondered if others could come up with an imaginary name for a photographic product or service?
     
  2. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,226
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm not very imaginative so I'm out... but the use of yellow by Kodak violates some "old and well-established rule of marketting" that belives that yellow is a very ineffective color to use.
     
  3. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,537
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Tell that to Vincent Van Gogh.
     
  4. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,226
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ya, color theory is an interesting thing. It works "both ways" it seems. Both research and practice are confusing. :smile:
     
  5. cjbecker

    cjbecker Member

    Messages:
    797
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Location:
    IN
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I would make it black and white and call it ilford. O yea, somebody already did that.
     
  6. Worker 11811

    Worker 11811 Member

    Messages:
    1,629
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The problem I see is that neologisms are the norm, today, rather than the exception.

    Back in Eastman's day, newfangled, made-up words were not so common. Even the invented words that were used made some kind of sense. "Dagurerrotype," for instance. "Photograph," even.

    Nowadays, we have names like "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" that are so commonly used that we use them as household words. Names like "Nutri-Sweet" or "Truvia" just blend into the background.

    Even acronyms ("scuba" = "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus") or initialisms ("ATM" = "Automatic Teller Machine") can be so common as to be meaningless.

    It's not like the old days when a good strong name could make a company. Today, everybody's doing it. In fact, I'd say that it's now the other way around. The reputation of the company can redefine the word. (e.g. "Google" which should be "googol.")

    I think the best bet would be to use a name as part of the company brand like "Jones Photographic Company."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2012
  7. batwister

    batwister Member

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Since the trend with film companies is a four letter, phonetic nonsense name - even Lomo - children usually have the best minds for this. What about PLOP? Nobody forgets a good plop.
     
  8. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,537
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I agree "Googol" is much better.
     
  9. batwister

    batwister Member

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I think the argument there would be that the 'le' gives it more credibility in the English language. It sounds more like a common word that way.
     
  10. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,537
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    OK, here is mine for a new camera - The ZEBOX.
     
  11. Worker 11811

    Worker 11811 Member

    Messages:
    1,629
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think it was misspelled for two reasons:

    1) Neologisms can be trademarked. That's why you see names like "Blu-Ray." It's easier to trademark as a unique word.

    2) They reduced the word to the lowest common denominator of the public's intelligence. A smaller portion of the people know how to spell the word "googol" much less know what it means.