We play well with others

We’re lucky to have some talented friends and partners in the branding world—design studios, strategists, consultants, freelance designers—who think of us when their clients have naming needs. Typically, this means working together to figure out how to seamlessly incorporate naming into the rest of their branding work. This is our jam.

Working with a longtime partner can feel like improvising over a familiar song, while working with a new partner feels more like composing the song from scratch—a foundation for future improvisatory flourishes. Of course, each longtime partner began as a shiny new one. And each project, regardless of how long we’ve known our partner, brings its own unique set of variables.

As more and more of our projects seem to come from partners these days, it feels worthwhile to reflect on the many shapes this can take—and how we see the ingredients for success. 

Here are some of the common iterations, each with its own strengths and potential drawbacks.

1. First thing’s naming

When we’re brought in: At kickoff, or even as early as the pitch. In the project plan, naming is the first step preceding other brand work. That means we run our naming workshop and full process as usual before handing things over to our partner. 

Relationship to client: Direct and candid. With an early introduction, we get to know the client alongside our partner. Even after handoff, we might join design discussions to give our feedback if requested.

What’s nice about this: We can educate early and often. The partner relationship feels balanced, and each side can do what it does best with a smooth transition in between.

Things to consider: If naming is the first brand element to be developed, it might be mistaken for a positioning exercise—which sets the name up to do too much heavy lifting. Our process can certainly set the stage for positioning work but shouldn’t replace it entirely.

2. First thing’s positioning

When we’re brought in: After positioning (or other foundational brand work) is complete. We use the positioning to inform our naming objectives, and then we run our full process. Naming may happen in parallel with other brand elements, i.e. mood boarding or brand concept development.  

Relationship to client: Direct but with partner support. Although we communicate and present in our AHM style, the partner may choose to join client discussions. The client should sense a common thread from positioning to naming and beyond. 

What’s nice about this: There’s already an onramp for naming. The client, via positioning work, has been primed to tackle difficult (or even existential) brand conversations, and everyone is on board with what the name should achieve. 

Things to consider: In this scenario, we may not be involved in our partner’s discovery or kickoff phase, so it’s important to make sure we have all of the background we need. But honestly, there aren’t too many cons to this approach. It’s one of our favorites.

3. Hybrid work

When we’re brought in: Similar to the previous approach, we enter the chat after our partner has done some foundational brand work. This time, instead of dropping our naming process into the middle of a project timeline, naming is more loosely incorporated into our partner’s deliverable (and format). This feels like more of a custom build, where we skip or adjust pieces of our process in order to fit a mold that’s best for the project. 

Relationship to client: While we do still interface directly with the client here, it’s unlikely that we interact with them without our partner present. We operate as a cohesive team, with naming as more of a collaborative effort.

What’s nice about this: From the client perspective, this is a more fluid experience. Especially with design partners at the helm, it’s incredibly effective to see names built into their design language, and it helps the client visualize what the brand could become. It’s great to have a partner’s support in selecting, championing, and visualizing names.

Things to consider: We have more of an auxiliary role here, so we’ll defer to our partner when it comes to navigating client feedback or any obstacles. Additionally, when names are presented as part of a larger deliverable, it means we’re discussing feedback as a group—which brings groupthink into the equation.

4. Incognito

When we’re brought in: This is rare, but occasionally a partner prefers to ‘whitelabel’ naming in order to simplify things on the client’s end. In these cases, we’ll operate stealthily in the background using information provided to us, or we might be introduced as part of the partner’s team rather than a separate entity.

Relationship to client: None, or next to none. The goal is to reduce any friction that comes from extra introductions, email addresses, Zoom squares, etc.

What’s nice about this: As a more extreme version of the previous approach, this should similarly create a more fluid experience for the client. With fewer touchpoints and solid partner communication, we can focus our energy on creative.

Things to consider: In our typical process, we rely on having direct access to decision makers and getting candid feedback on names. Here, that goes out the window. Feedback becomes a game of telephone and the decision may become more difficult.

5. Midstream SOS

When we’re brought in: Unknown! Sometimes a partner will send the bat signal in the middle of their project when a client finds out that a name won’t work. This could be at any stage. Maybe they’ve already tried naming for the client, or maybe the client discovered trademark concerns with a name they already had. 

Relationship to client: Since we’re unexpected guests, we’ll defer to what our partner thinks is best here. But given the dire circumstances, we’ll likely suggest working with the client directly.

What’s nice about this: Folks are motivated to keep things moving, so there’s usually good communication and fast feedback. We can also learn from all the work that’s been done already (i.e. positioning, brand identity)—especially any naming work and the challenges they faced.

Things to consider: This can be a frustrating moment for everyone involved. Emotions run high, time is tight, and there might be more doubt about the naming process. These situations require more education around trademark and/or how to get a name across the finish line.

Even within these five very loose categories, no two partner projects are alike—and we wouldn’t want it that way. We’re big believers that any partnership style can work when everyone is aligned on priorities and flexible elsewhere. That said, in our experience, the ingredients that lead to the best outcomes are:

• Having direct access to decision makers on the client’s team
• The client is bought into the process (i.e. they’re game to read materials, be challenged, and have an open mind)
• Partner support of names when presented (either written, verbal, or via design)

Most importantly, we like doing good work with good people and putting interesting brands out into the world. If these things entice you too, give us a shout. We’d love to build something together.