In 2020, brands are treating their names like regrettable tattoos.
We’ve seen a lot of change this year as brands, bands, and institutions have revised their language to be more inclusive. First and foremost: their names. Who knew it was so easy to not celebrate confederate generals?
As namers here at A Hundred Monkeys, we’ve kept our eyes on these changes — taking note of the perceived solutions and the risks (however minimal) that came with them.
In July I wrote about Aunt Jemima and the notion of gaining (versus losing) brand equity with a name change. Going back to the drawing board is sometimes the only way forward. But for some brands, it’s hard to completely let go of the brand equity the name carried — so they salvage part of the name and give it new meaning.
If you’re Johnny Depp, it’s a bit like changing your “Winona” tattoo to “Wino” instead of removing it completely. Luckily for Depp, he is a true wino (who at one point was apparently spending around $30,000 per month on wine). He was able to keep 66% of the name and still express something of meaning. Not the deepest of meanings, but still.
If you’re faced with a drastic name change, there’s something appealing about working with what you’ve already got. For Depp, it’s less excruciating pain. For brands, it’s equity. I took a look at three recent examples of these name modifications, from good, to bad, to meh.
Repeller — formerly known as Man Repeller — is a great name. With humble beginnings as “a blog about style trends women love and men hate”, Man Repeller grew to represent a full-blown media brand over the course of a decade. They recently dropped the “Man” in an effort to be less heteronormative and more inclusive — just one of many changes they’ve promised, after coming under fire this year for a lack of diversity.
Given all the work there is to be done internally, the name change is really just a small first step, but they’ve made a modification that works. “Repeller” on its own captures the spirit of the original name without making assumptions about the implied spectator. It creates a dissonance that still feels unexpected, all these years later. Now we wait and see if more change is around the corner.
Next up is Lady A. Ohhh, Lady A.
It would’ve been hard to miss the media frenzy surrounding the country band Lady Antebellum and their fumbled name trim. To begin with, the name “Lady A” felt like a halfhearted attempt. It’s essentially inviting people to fill in the blank with the first thing that comes to mind (which is likely “Antebellum”).
Cut to: an all-white country band suing a black female musician (Anita White, aka Lady A) over a name she’d been using for decades. It’s a masterclass in performative allyship in an opportune moment. Sigh.
And finally, there’s Ben’s Original.
The news of Uncle Ben’s intended rebranding came around the same time as Aunt Jemima’s earlier this year. Their parallels are clear but Uncle Ben’s was first to reveal its new name, Ben’s Original (Aunt Jemima hasn’t announced a new name at the time of publication).
As a namer, I was eager to see how they’d navigate such a public change and was thrilled that they’d decided to do so. But like Lady A, it wasn’t quite the departure I’d hoped for — especially with the same font and color scheme applied.
It’s certainly understandable for a huge consumer brand to take the safer route, with so much equity at stake (see: excruciating tattoo removal). But since other brand elements will remain the same, they probably had a bit more wiggle room on the naming front. It’ll be hard to see a box of Ben’s Original and not think “Uncle Ben’s”. Although, for a shopper in 2097, that might not be the case.
Having been around for 77 years, they’re likely focused on the long haul. In another 77 years, people may not know about the old moniker when they’re ordering parboiled rice via the chips in their brains. If they do know about it, they’ll also know that the company made some effort to evolve.
Aunt Jemima, on the other hand, doesn’t lend itself quite as well to the “Wino” method. The name already had connotations beyond syrup (i.e. the minstrel character Old Aunt Jemima), so it might be harder to appease audiences with a simple “Jemima’s” — even with an entire redesign.
No one envies the people who are navigating these changes. Changing a name is hard enough without all of the media scrutiny and social responsibility. As more and more brands make these adjustments, here’s hoping we see some names that feel brand new — because I think right now we’re all hungry for change.
Thanks to Ben Weis and Patrick Keenan.
