A Naming Process for Big Teams

The brief is the work.

Last week I was at Monzo leading a lunch-and-learn on naming.

Monzo already has a strong brand, of course. But in large companies, naming rarely stops at the brand itself. New products, features, programs, and internal systems are constantly being created — and each one needs a name that people can understand, use, and repeat.

In tech and finance especially, names do a lot of quiet work. They shape adoption. They influence how products are talked about internally and externally. And over time, they reinforce how a brand is understood — or subtly diluted.

It got me thinking about something I see again and again:

The hardest part of naming isn’t coming up with options.

It’s agreeing on what the name is supposed to do.

When Everyone Has a Stake, Naming Gets Complicated

In large organisations, naming decisions rarely belong to one person.

Product, marketing, sales, leadership — everyone enters the room with legitimate ideas about what the name should accomplish.

None of this is inherently a problem.

The issue is that these priorities are often left implicit, only surfacing once names are already on the table. At that point, every reaction feels loaded. Conversations drift toward taste. Decisions slow down.

The problem usually isn’t a lack of options.

It’s that success was never clearly defined.

Before Naming Begins, Define What Success Looks Like

In practice, the most important work in naming tends to happen before anyone starts generating options.

If a team hasn’t agreed on what the name is meant to achieve — what role it should play, what tradeoffs it’s willing to make, what it needs to support — then the naming phase ends up carrying too much weight.

Ideas become precious.
Feedback feels personal.

A clear briefing process changes the dynamic.

It gives everyone a shared understanding of what they’re trying to accomplish. When names appear, the conversation is grounded in intention rather than instinct.

This is why the brief matters.

And why, in many cases, it’s more important than the brainstorm itself.

How to Build a Strong Naming Brief

For large teams, the brief isn’t background context.

It’s the work.

A strong naming brief gives everyone the same frame of reference before names appear. It doesn’t capture every opinion — it clarifies priorities.

The goal isn’t agreement on taste.

It’s alignment on intent.

1. Get Clear on What’s Being Named

Start with the basics.

Ask:

• What exactly are we naming — a product, feature, program, or system?

• Where does it live in the broader brand or product ecosystem?

This sounds obvious, but confusion here creates downstream problems quickly.

2. Define What Success Looks Like

This is the most important step — and the one most teams skip.

Before generating names, align on what the name needs to accomplish in the real world.

Ask:

• What should the name make easier — understanding, adoption, trust, differentiation?

• Is clarity more important than novelty here?

• If the name works perfectly, what changes as a result?

For large teams, it helps to force prioritization. Agree on one or two primary outcomes the name must achieve. Everything else is secondary.

3. Decide How Much Room the Name Needs

Names rarely stay static, especially in growing organizations.

Ask:

• Where could this product reasonably go next?

• Does the name need to support future features, products, or audiences?

This step helps avoid names that feel right today but restrictive a year from now.

4. Decide What Kind of Name You Need

Not every name does the same job.

And not everything needs a name at all.

Ask:

• Is this a proper name — something clearly owned by the brand and carrying its own identity?
  (Example: Spotify Premium)

• Is this an ownable term — familiar language slightly reframed?
  (Example: Spotify Wrapped, Daylist, DJ)

• Or is it better handled with straightforward descriptive language?
  (Playlists, Settings, Search)

Sometimes the most useful outcome of this step is realizing that a concept doesn’t need a new name at all.

Naming everything can create friction just as easily as it can create clarity.

5. Gather Input — Then Distill It

Large teams often try to align while evaluating names.

A better approach is to gather input early — often through a short questionnaire — and have one group (usually brand or marketing) distill that input into the brief.

Not everything makes it through.

That’s intentional.

The brief should reflect shared priorities, not a transcript of opinions.

6. Confirm Decision-Making Before Names Are Shared

Finally, clarify how decisions will be made.

Ask:

• Who will review the names?

• Who has final say?

This step doesn’t need to be heavy-handed. It just needs to be explicit.

When teams know how decisions will be made, the naming phase tends to move faster — and feel far less charged.

From Brief to Decision

Once a naming brief is in place, copywriters can run a more focused brainstorm and present clearer recommendations.

Decision-makers can move beyond instinctive reactions and start asking the more useful question:

Which name actually does the job best?

If you’re interested in digging deeper into naming strategy, these articles may help:

• Coining a Name: How to Kleenex-ify Your Product

• Why Concepts Build Stronger Brands

• How Long Should a Name Be?

And if your team is navigating naming decisions at scale, I work with companies on building clearer naming systems — often through workshops and internal sessions.

I work with companies on naming systems, product naming, and internal workshops that help teams align before the brainstorm even begins.

This article was originally published on The Nameist Substack.