Who to Be, or Who Not to Be...That is the Question

The topic of naming one's independent (freelance) business has come up quite a few times during my forum romps lately. It usually unfolds like this: a grad or in-house designer wishes to branch out on their own and are seeking sources of inspiration by asking folks who are already entrepreneurs on how they decided on their business names. I thought I'd journal my own process here because a name...though not the most important factor in one's business, bears as much thoughtful "tailored" consideration as designing the identity itself. It should to some degree be a reflection of one's aspiration, motivation or personality as well as service. That said, I considered several factors:

1. Who do I want to woo? If I came up with a name that's too cute, kitschy or quirky, it might scare off corporate prospects because it didn't exude enough professionalism. If I decided on a name that was too stale, it would rub against the creative grain. I knew I couldn't appeal to everybody, but I did want to toss as wide a net as possible. That said, I decided that "clever" was going to be the operative word.

2. I wanted a name that would come up high in any alphabetized directory listing. My former incarnation of "Seahorse Productions" left me way too low—it was doubtful that any prospect looking for a designer wouldn't find someone else before reaching the "S" listings. I wanted a name that was high up enough to come up (hopefully) in the first page of any given listing.

3. I didn't want to use my own name. Why? Partly because I thought "Dagmar Designs" or some such name was too silly sounding to even consider, partly because it wasn't creative sounding enough to satisfy me and because I also wanted a name that was versatile enough to grow with my business' goals.

4. The domain had to be available. Just a given these days that a dot com denotes professionalism more than any of the others. Either way I did buy the dot net as well. Incidently, that's one reason why I settled on Archetype Design Studio..."Archetype" was bought by a broker and I didn't want the dot net. I also thought it was more descriptive of my services (see 5).

5. It had to be understood what I did for a living to a degree. I can't tell you how many times I had to explain my services with my former, more vague incarnation. Just felt it did more harm than good for enticing any "window shoppers," aka potential clients.

So with all that in mind, I searched dictionaries and domain availability. I finally settled on "Archetype" because it worked on so many levels for me. "Type" implied my niche of design to a degree and "Arche" can be easily interpreted as "Architect" therefore "Architect of Type" (many who are familiar with design jargon have told me that they also refer "type" as a shortened form of "typography"). What really sold the deal for me was the actual meaning of archetype (the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example) which vibed quite well with my personal creative ambitions.

Here are some examples of clever and distinct name solutions within our industry. I tried to show a nice variety of typographic and pictorial graphic solutions.

I wanted to add that for Jeff Fisher's Logomotives, (lucky for us) he wrote about the evolution of his own identity not too long ago. It's worth including a link. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that a good old fashioned google search would probably yield volumes on the topic.

Everyone has their own personal criteria for settling on a name—as such, there is no standard formula. So long as the name is one that in some way reflects not only you as a designer, but also does it in a way that will generate interest from the target market, as they say, "let it flow."

All design identities are copyrighted by their respective individual authors.
William Shakespeare's Identity Crisis cartoon by Dagmar Jeffrey. All rights reserved.