This thought has been kicking around in my head for a while now, a bit of a rebel yell against the perfectly formed, statistically-backed world of short brand names. You know the mantra: keep it concise, keep it catchy, keep it… short. And the data backs it up, right? Shorter names are easier to remember, take up less space, and generally play nicer with our attention-deficit brains.

But sometimes, I wonder if we’re overlooking a valuable approach in our strong preference for short names. A longer name can occasionally feel like the right fit.

Butterfly wants an open fruit, Photograph taken at SGNP, Mumbai 2023

Think about it: in a world drowning in brand noise, a longer name can actually cut through the clutter simply by offering more context. It’s almost like a tiny headline built right into the brand itself. It can make deciding a little less of a guessing game, especially when you’re faced with a sea of new names that sound… well, short.

And here’s a thought that tickles me: when people organically shorten a longer name, give it a nickname, or create their own abbreviation, isn’t that a form of connection? A little piece of co-creation? It feels more… human.

Now, the usual suspects will line up with their objections to long names. “They’re boring!” “They clutter the design!” “They’ll confuse people!” “Nobody can remember them!” And sure, on the surface, these make sense. Especially that last one. But let’s flip the script for a second. We’ve become so conditioned to the short-is-king rule that anything longer feels like an anomaly. But is that always a customer problem, or sometimes more about ingrained industry preferences? If presented well, if the name itself holds a genuine clarity, perhaps customers might just embrace it.

And let’s be honest, the well of truly great, unused, short words is running dry. Consider the sheer number of brands vying for attention, and how many default to single-word names. Then think of the finite number of truly evocative and relevant single words – the names of natural elements, feelings, or everyday objects. It’s a limited playing field, and only a select few brands can realistically claim the prime real estate. This forces many to resort to creative spellings, unconventional pronunciations, and abstract terms just to carve out a short, unique identity. While these techniques are now commonplace, they aren’t always ideal and can even become targets for criticism or create genuine confusion. It’s a competitive scramble for a limited resource, and perhaps it’s time to consider a different game altogether. Imagine someone encountering a brand name that offers no immediate clue about its purpose. For many, especially those less immersed in the nuances of branding and marketing, this disconnect can create an immediate sense of distance and confusion, a hurdle that needs to be overcome before any genuine connection can even begin.

Of course, short names have their undeniable charms. They’re punchy, memorable (when they land), and design-friendly. No argument there.

But here’s where my real interest lies: that slow-burn benefit of clarity. In a world speeding towards exponential everything, including miscommunication, shouldn’t our brands aim for more transparency from the get-go? If a short, snappy name has absolutely zero connection to what you’re selling, you’re immediately relying on clever (and sometimes subconscious) marketing to build that bridge.

The name, that first impression, that initial point of contact – it’s a chance to set things straight, to begin with honesty. When a name naturally fits the product or service, the communication that follows can be more direct, less reliant on decoding clever campaigns just to understand what you actually do.

This isn’t a manifesto against short names. It’s more of a personal nudge to reconsider the automatic dismissal of longer ones. Maybe, just maybe, in our drive for short names, we’re overlooking a path towards deeper understanding and more transparent connections. Just a thought I wanted to put down, a little wander through the field of brand names, seen from a slightly different angle. No grand conclusions here, just a different way of looking at things.

What do you think?