One name was the clear winner on recall. People remembered it easily, straight away and days later. If memory were the only measure, it would have been a straightforward decision, but when we looked at what it stood for, the brand values weren’t really there. It was memorable without being meaningful.

Another name had decent recall, some positive associations, and nothing to put you off. The kind of option that feels reasonable until you realise it doesn’t feel like anything in particular.

But one name kept surfacing the right associations in the unprompted responses including creativity and setting new standards, without anyone being pointed in that direction. And more importantly, it didn’t bring up anything negative. When that pattern showed up in the implicit measures too, it told us that this wasn’t a name people liked when they thought about it but a name that was already doing the right work before anyone had stopped to think about it.

The fourth name had something different going for it: distinctiveness. People saw it as unique, and it held up well across different markets. But the free responses flagged some negative associations, and that’s worth taking seriously before committing to a name you’re going to be living with for a long time.

No single name ticked every box but that’s rarely how it works. The research gave the agency a clear view of what each name was actually doing including its strengths and its risks. That’s what made the decision informed rather than a guess.