Why the same names appear in two or more categories
Search “types of brand names” and you’ll quickly discover that experts don’t agree. Some frameworks list seven categories. Others eight or ten.
Descriptive names. Founder names. Invented names. Compound names. Acronyms. Abstract names.
Something becomes clear once you start checking famous brands against these lists: they appear in various categories at the same time. Facebook is descriptive and compound. KFC is classified as an acronym, but it also carries geographical meaning through Kentucky. Pinterest is described as invented, blended, and suggestive, three labels for one name.
This overlap is evidence that most lists try to answer two different questions:
• Where does the name get its meaning?
• How was the name built, from a linguistic standpoint?
Our review of major frameworks and our own naming work showed that most lists answer two separate questions. Once separated, the contradictions disappear because a name can answer both.
Take Facebook. Its meaning is descriptive: it originally referred to the printed student directories used at American universities. Its construction is compound: two existing words combined into one.
Pinterest works the same way. Its meaning is associative, evoking inspiration, discovery, and collecting ideas. Its construction is a blend of “pin” and “interest”.
Kodak is an invented word, created to be distinctive and memorable through sound, and unlike Pinterest it carries no inherited meaning. The sense had to be built through the brand itself, over decades of marketing. But its construction isn’t random either: the hard “K” sound was chosen because it reads the same way across languages and carries a sense of precision and decisiveness.
Treating Pinterest and Kodak both as “invented names” misses the distinction: a coined name isn’t automatically abstract. And an abstract name isn’t defined by how it was built.
So, there’s no such thing as a clean list. Brand names operate on multiple dimensions simultaneously.
Layer 1: The Meaning
This is the strategic layer. It helps to shape positioning, perception, and emotional resonance.
1. Founder names (eponymous)
These names borrow credibility, personality, and sometimes story from the founders.
Examples: Disney, Armani, Ford.
🟢 Advantages: authenticity, heritage, a strong founder narrative.
🔴 Risks: the brand can struggle to outgrow the founder, and reputation issues can affect the business.
2. Geographic and historical names
They anchor the brand in a place, an era, or an origin story.
Examples: British Airways, The New York Times, Kentucky Fried Chicken.
🟢 Advantages: authenticity, a sense of provenance, built in storytelling.
🔴 Risks: the geography can box the brand in once it expands past that origin.
3. Descriptive names
These names explain exactly what the company does.
Examples: Booking.com, Whole Foods, General Motors.
🟢 Advantages: immediate clarity, less marketing effort needed early on.
🔴 Risks: hard to trademark, limited differentiation, limiting if the company moves into new categories.
4. Evocative names (suggestive)
This is the category most often confused with the next one, so it’s worth being precise.
A suggestive name points or hints at an attribute of the product, service or company.
Slack suggests ease, the absence of friction and tension, which is what the product removes from your workday. The irony in the meaning is the bonus adding humanity and more energy.
Swiffer suggests swift cleaning.
Uber comes from the German “über”, meaning “supreme”, used to describe a higher tier of service.
In every case, the meaning stays in the same conceptual area as the product. You’re not borrowing imagery from somewhere else, you’re pointing at a quality the product has.
Examples: Slack, Swiffer, Uber.
🟢 Advantages: distinctive, more strategic flexibility than a literal descriptive name.
🔴 Risks: they may need extra context for audiences encountering the brands for the first time outside their category.
5. Metaphorical names (associative)
This is where suggestive names are most often confused.
Nike is the Greek goddess of victory. That isn’t just evoking a feeling about the product, it’s importing meaning from a different domain, the same way Jaguar, Dove and Amazon do.
None of these words describe the product or a direct, real attribute. The brand has to build the bridge.
The test that separates a suggestive name from a metaphorical one is not always straightforward but this question can help: does the name describe a quality tied to the product, or does it borrow imagery from an unrelated domain and asks the audience to map it across? Suggestive stays closer to home. Metaphorical goes somewhere else entirely and brings extra meaning.
Examples: Amazon, Dove, Jaguar, Nike.
🟢 Advantages: rich emotional territory, strong storytelling potential, room to grow.
🔴 Risks: the association has to be relevant even if it’s related to the big audacious vision.
6. Arbitrary names
These are real words borrowed from an unrelated context.
Examples: Apple, Virgin, Orange.
Unlike metaphorical names, arbitrary names don’t necessarily invite audiences to draw a symbolic connection. The word is adopted and given a new meaning through the brand.
🟢 Advantages: familiarity, memorability, strong trademark potential.
🔴 Risks: initial high marketing costs to educate and shape the right associations in some cases.
7. Abstract or fanciful names (coined)
These begin as a blank slate, with no inherited meaning. Unlike arbitrary names, which borrow existing words from unrelated contexts, abstract or fanciful names are entirely invented.
Examples: Kodak, Xerox, Rolex.
🟢 Advantages: strong trademark potential, maximum flexibility, room to stretch across categories.
🔴 Risks: it can take time and real investment to build meaning from nothing.
Worth flagging that this risk is contested. David Placek of Lexicon Branding, the agency behind names like Pentium and Swiffer, argues invented names can = cost less to build into a strong brand than descriptive ones, precisely because they’re unexpected and attract curiosity.
Either way, weak phonetics can still sink a coined name regardless of budget.
8. Foreign language names
Strictly speaking, this category can overlap with several others. A foreign language name may be descriptive, evocative, metaphorical or arbitrary depending on its meaning. Most audiences experience these names primarily through sound rather than meaning, but it’s useful to consider them separately.
These names carry meaning that many people will never consciously decode; the meaning still shapes the sound and feel of the word but for a limited number of people.
Examples: Lego, from the Danish leg godt (“play well”). Samsung, “three stars” in Korean.
🟢 Advantages: distinctiveness, cultural depth.
🔴 Risks: pronunciation can become a barrier in some markets.
Layer 2: Linguistic Construct
This is the linguistic layer. It describes how the name was built, not the meaning or associative intentions. Any of the categories above can be built using one or some of the techniques below. This is not a finite list, we create names all the time and there are multiple ways to do it. There’s a whole subfield of linguistics called lexical semantics that studies how words and phrases convey meaning.
1. Compound names
Two whole, intact words pushed together into a new word.
Examples: Facebook, PayPal, YouTube.
2. Blends or portmanteaus
Parts of two words spliced so they share letters or sounds. The difference from a compound is that something gets trimmed to make the splice work.
Examples: Pinterest (pin + interest), Groupon (group + coupon), Microsoft (microcomputer + software).
3. Acronyms and initialisms
Built from initials.
Examples: IBM, BBC, HSBC, BP, IKEA. (IKEA is made up of the initials of the founder, the farm and Swedish village where he grew up).
4. Truncated names
A longer word or phrase shortened while the meaning stays intact.
Examples: Cisco (from San Francisco), FedEx (from Federal Express).
5. Altered spellings
A real word with letters changed, dropped, or swapped, while remaining recognisable.
Examples: Kleenex, Lyft.
6. Vowel dropping
A specific and increasingly common case of altered spelling, worth separating because it represents a distinct naming trend.
Examples: Flickr, Tumblr.
7. Onomatopoeic names
Built from a word that imitates the sound it describes, rather than describing the thing through meaning.
Examples: Zoom, Snapchat.
8. Real word
The brand adopts an existing dictionary word, unaltered. No blending, truncating or inventing; borrowing from a different set of lexical category or niche makes the word easier to own in terms of trademark and digital footprint.
Examples: Apple, Amazon, Slack, Uber, Nike.
9. Multi-word names
Names made up of several separate words rather than a single one.
Examples: Ben & Jerry’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Bed Bath & Beyond, Under Armour
! Sound symbolism in invented words:
Certain sounds carry meaning and suggestive associations because of the sounds they contain and trigger remarkably consistent associations across cultures. Hard consonants such as K and X often suggest speed, precision and technology, which is why Kodak, Xerox, and Spanx lean on them.
Research shows that people tend to associate soft, rounded sounds such as m, l and b with friendliness, softness and warmth, while sharper sounds such as k, t or z are often perceived as faster, more precise or more energetic. Brand names can deliberately use these associations. A skincare or wellness brand may favour softer sounds to signal comfort and care, while a technology or performance brand may rely on sharper sounds to communicate speed or innovation. Sound symbolism should never drive naming decisions in isolation, but when aligned with positioning, it can strengthen both memorability and perceived brand associations.
Häagen-Dazs is an extreme example: an entirely invented phrase built to sound Scandinavian and premium. For Coca-Cola, repetition and alliteration create rhythm and memorability and the rounded sounds feel friendly and approachable. For TikTok, the sharp plosive sounds mimic the idea of short, rapid interactions. In Lululemon, repeated l creates a flowing, playful effect.
…….
Many of these construction techniques can coexist within the same name. A brand name is rarely one thing only, which is why separating meaning from construction creates a clearer framework for decision making.
Namer and author Rob Meyerson has pointed out that many naming frameworks suffer from gaps or repeats, and he also recommends looking at both a name’s approach (from descriptive to abstract) and its construction. Jonathan Bell of WANT Branding proposes categories like eponymous, descriptive, acronymic, suggestive, associative, non-English and abstract, each linked more to the meaning than with construction.
Every naming brief has to answer two separate questions: What should this name communicate? How should that idea be expressed through language?Above both sits a third requirement: ownability.
At Onomatopy, every naming project runs through a broader set of criteria: positioning, distinctiveness, memorability, sound, humanity, energy, and ownability.
Strong names come from creative thinking, linguistics and ownability checks working together and the best names are rarely accidents – they’re strategic choices, expressed through language.
If you have a naming challenge or simply a naming question, email us at alina@onomatopy.com.






