Ask HN: Correlating bad startup names with failure? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Correlating bad startup names with failure?

6 pointspgt7 comments

Whenever I see startups pick a bad name, I think "If they can't even get the brand right, forget about product!" Especially names that try to be clever or fail a basic phone test. For example, "Toodu" is a local startup that closed recently and it's a spelling nightmare. Anecdotal cases aside, is my correlation spurious? Has anyone correlated the clarity of a name with likelihood of failure? What are some good counter-examples of startups that worked despite a bad name? (Reddit is one)

View on HN

I'm a naming expert and I've actually written a book on 'how to name your startup'. Currently working on a Kindle version.

As a part of the book, I interviewed Sahil Laviniga, the founder of Gumroad. He invests a little on the side, and he told me that a bad name is a bad sign. From the transcript:

I think a name is actually quite representative of the long-term commitments of the founders/ founding team. A name that sounds ridiculous or uses an uncommon TLD may seem throwaway and imply a lack of product sense. Founders should be picking a name with a long-term potential.

Fred Wilson also wrote about domain names at http://avc.com/2011/04/finding-and-buying-a-domain-name/

I believe that a good domain name is an important success factor in building and launching consumer web services. It's not in my top ten but it could be. It's certainly something we think about a lot when making investments and working with companies post investment.

So for at least two investors, the name definitely matters.

If you're looking for specific examples, look into Wesabe (lost to Mint) an Fukime (no longer exists). In general, a good name won't make you successful, but a bad name will hold you back.

More reading on Mint vs. Wesabe: http://kcovia.com/why-mint-beat-wesabe/

I judge startup names too (agree "Toodu" is bad) but there is at least anecdotal evidence that bad names do not guarantee failure. My favorite example of the moment would be Whatsapp. I didn't check it out for years simply because I thought the name was trite and indicative of being a throw-away quality app effort. I suspect if one could do a real correlation study, it would back up the bad-name-to-failure theory.

Toodu and Reddit aren't bad name. They are simple bi-syllabic words that are completely original. If you want your company to list easily in Google, this is how you do it. I suggest you think a bit more deeply about names before calling them out.

Plus it's fairly obvious that name is a small factor in success. A simple, original name (Google!) is simply best practice.

Thanks for the input, @Metatron. Sure, there are all kinds of factors that determine whether a name is good. And uniqueness helps with Google ranking. But I suspect that a simple, original, unspellable, unsayable name can adversely affect your chances of success. And that's why I'm asking whether there is a statistical basis for my assumption.

I would agree that Google is a good name. Certainly slightly better name than "googol", because it's easier to spell. And you would agree that "SearchEnginez.com" would have been a terrible name for Google, no? My question is specifically concerned with whether there is good evidence that if they had chosen a much worse name, they might not be as successful today, or perhaps irrelevant.

I suspect there's very little correlation between the "quality" of startup names (how do you even quantify this?) and the startup's success.

I mean, fool.com is pretty huge.

Fool.com is a great name! Easy to spell, easy to say, relevant to its content. And a short .com!

So those would be some of my criteria.

You should turn this into a start up idea. I think it will work. I think you should call it......

StartupNameGenerator

Reply on news.ycombinator.com