Podcast | What Goes Into Creating Effective Brand Names?

Podcast | What Goes Into Creating Effective Brand Names?

Episode Description: What Goes Into Creating Effective Brand Names?

David Placek founder and president of Lexicon Branding sits down with Matthew Quint (Director, Center on Global Brand Leadership) and J.P. Kuehlwein (Adjunct faculty member; Co-Founder and Principal, Ueber-Brands Consulting) to discuss what goes into creating effective brand names. This episode of the Columbia University Business School’s BRITE Ideas podcast covers:

  • History of Lexicon Branding
  • Insights Behind the Name Lexicon Branding
  • What Qualities Make An Effective Brand Name?
  • How To Evaluate Brand Naming Architecture
  • Importance of Evaluating A Name Across Cultures
  • Importance of Evaluating The Equity of A Name


This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Placek:  One of the things we say is, and this is surprising to a lot of people, we tell them we’re not going to tell your story in one six, seven, eight-letter word. But what we’re going to develop for you is the building block or the building blocks of your story, right. It’s not the story.

Host: Welcome to the BRITE Ideas podcast, where we discuss how brands build relationships with consumers and society through innovation, technology, and marketing. BRITE ideas is produced by the Center on Global Brand Leadership at Columbia Business School.

Matthew Quint: I’m Matthew Quint, Director of the Center on Global Brand Leadership.

J.P. Kuehlwein: And I’m J.P. Kuehlwein, Adjunct Faculty here at the school and Principal at Ueber-Brands Consulting.

Host: BRITE Ideas is sponsored by Lexicon Branding, a specialized consulting firm that develops inspiring brand names, and brand architectures. For both the Fortune 500, and today’s innovative startups, and Kogan Page, an independent award-winning publisher that delivers best practices and innovative thinking from global experts across every key business subject.

Matthew Quint: We are speaking today with David Placek, who is the CEO of Lexicon. We’re really looking forward to his insights on brand naming and brand architectures of which he is an expert. We also want to recognize and thank him for the support of Lexicon in producing the BRITE Ideas podcast. So, it’s great to have you here today, David, we’re really looking forward of speaking with you.

David Placek: Well, thank you. I’m really looking forward to this discussion today, and my whole purpose here is hopefully to be informative to the viewers.

Matthew Quint: That’s great. Well, why don’t you just kick things off, David, with a little bit of your background. I know Lexicon has been a long stretch of your background.

David Placek: Sure. I am the president and the founder of Lexicon Branding. We’re approaching our 39th year. So, we’re quite experienced in this category of, as you mentioned, brand names and brand architecture. We also do brand positioning at the company. Prior to that, I spent six wonderful years at the San Francisco firm of Foote, Cone & Belding. And before that, I actually worked for the U.S. Senate for the Senate Commerce Committee and did some speech writing, a little bit of legislation writing and things like that. So, pretty much of a varied background, which I think been an enormous help to me in this position.

J.P. Kuehlwein: Wow. That is eclectic indeed, David. And you’ve come up with so many fantastic names at Lexicon. I’m just looking at your background here, literally the background behind you: Pentium, Dasani, Sonos, and so and so on. But really the first name I wanted to ask you about is Lexicon. How did you come up with Lexicon and how were you able to protect this kind of a name?

David Placek: Well, it’s always a struggle. I think we see this in our clients who are naming their own company. Or if they have worked for a long time developing a product, it becomes a very personal thing. So, of course, for me at the time, it was a very personal thing. It still is, but I did apply some criteria to the development that we actually still use today. So, I’ll just talk about those and then, I think you’ll see how Lexicon as a name fits into that. First off, we wanted something accessible, right. This is really an important criteria for all our projects here. We never want to intimidate people in a name. We want something that’s relatively easy to pronounce. And so, we use the phrase ‘accessible.’ Linguists talk about processing fluency and as we get into some of the other questions today I probably will address that too.

 The second thing we wanted was, ‘unexpected’. And combined with that is this notion, and this is another Lexicon standard, don’t imitate and don’t create a name that is easy to imitate. So, right away, although we were one of the early entrants into this category, the easy or the low hanging fruit would have been, “Name This” “Word This”, “Wordsmith That,” “Brand This”, “That Brand”, and I said, we’re going to have competition. We’re going to have more competition. And so, our name cannot start with “Name,” or “Word,” or “Phrase,” or anything like that. And so, as we did our exploratory, someone landed on the word Lexicon, and we were… we still do this today in our studio, we put names up on a wall and we circle and we make comments, and I went to the dictionary and looked it up.

It’s an understanding of the law, right. It’s “Lex,” the law and “icon.” So, understanding of law, imagery, language, right. And I said, that’s perfect. It also works very well because it’s rooted in Greek, the language and history. And so, Greek, Latin, that travels pretty well through Europe and through the U.S. In Asia, that “L” can go to an “R,” they flip it so it can be pronounced, “Rexicon.” But now as English becomes more of a global standard and we do have a lot of business in both China and Japan, I don’t see that anymore. I used to. So, that’s maybe too long of a story for you, but that’s how we got to “Lexicon.”

J.P. Kuehlwein: You’ll probably get tired of hearing this. It’s all in the name, what’s in the name, but you gave us two criteria, “accessibility” being one important one. I always at Procter & Gamble heard about “memorable, short, it should be positive,” can you give of us a couple more and maybe give us some that might surprise, because I also hear from some people that a name that doesn’t flow off the tongue might actually not be that bad. And in which case would that be the case?

David Placek:  Okay. Well, I love the question first off. It’s really a fundamental question when it comes to naming. We start every project here with a client input or client interview. And one of the things we say is, and this is surprising to a lot of people, we tell them we’re not going to tell your story in one, six, seven, eight-letter word, right. What we’re going to develop for you is the building blocks of your story, right. It’s not the story. And it’s counterintuitive. Someone who just kind of comes to Lexicon, they see our credentials, things like Sonos and Impossible Foods, and they say, what, isn’t that the story? No, those are the building blocks. They get attention for you. So, that’s the first role of really what’s in a name, the building blocks.

Now, what are the components of those building blocks, right? Because, I mean, this is now more in the detail to your question. We do have to be distinctive in the marketplace. Humans and psychologists and psychiatrists, well, researchers, cognitive scientists, all agree to this. We like new ideas. We don’t pay much attention to the old, we do focus on what’s new, right? When you’re walking down the street, it’s the same street you walk down for weeks or months, you don’t pay attention to what you’ve seen before, but if there’s a new store there or something’s new on the street, that’s what you focus on. So, we want to be distinctive in the marketplace. One way to be distinctive is to be as original as we possibly can. Now, that doesn’t mean that you need to make up a name like Xerox, or Kodak, or Pentium.

It means that you can take a word from a different category and move it into a new category. This is what we did with BlackBerry. We took it out of the world of fruit, and nourishment, and we put it on a communication device. And all of a sudden, consumers are looking at this and saying, “what’s going on here?” Right? And they’re picking up a little bit of the associations around fruit and summer and refreshing, and it’s easy to use, it’s easy to eat, those kinds of things. But the actual blackberry kind of goes away. People don’t think about, oh, if I picked this up, I might get a stain on my shirt or on my glass. So, those are the things that we look at. So, if we’re distinctive and we’re original to one degree or another, what happens, we begin to spike memorability.

And in today’s very crowded competitive marketplace with very distracted consumers, memorability is more important than ever. It’s always been important. No one will disagree with that. But now, it’s critical. If people can’t remember your brand, they can’t buy it. So, we look at those three things. And one other thing on memorability, adding color to a name or something tangible, an example I love to use is Red Hat Software. Simple solution, very accessible, but now I’ve got a color we’re familiar with, and I’ve got a tangible object. Memorability spikes.

Matthew Quint: Our faculty director at the Brand Center, Professor Schmidt, joked in being interviewed for a New Yorker piece around brand naming, that Amazon really screwed up, and they should have named themselves Nile, because it’s shorter, it begins with a consonant, which is better. Now, he was joking partly to get at that, right. It was the equity of what Amazon was delivering, that was what created the success of the brand. And the name maybe could have been potentially interchangeable in some ways. But now, as I think about it, you just brought up an interesting point, which is, “Amazon” somehow has a wild, a wilderness kind of memorability in people’s head in the way the Nile doesn’t necessarily spark the same imagery. So, maybe to follow up, you can talk about, where have you seen and where do you as the agency side balance that building block and the equity story-

David Placek: Yeah.

Matthew Quint: That comes from the brand itself, afterwards.

David Placek: Yeah. So, again, I love your questions here today because they really capture some of these essential issues that we have to deal with, and more important, our clients have to deal with. So, we look at the equity that’s built in a brand. Obviously, we don’t have a lot of responsibility for that. What we’re really about here is efficiency and effectiveness in launching a brand and getting people to take notice, getting people to try it, getting people to remember it so they can try it. And then, really the rest is up to the experience, the behavior of the product itself, and how the company behaves towards their new brand. But we play this fundamental instrumental role in getting the marketplace to take notice.

Now, let me just go back and address Professor Smith’s remark because again, it’s another interesting thing. I would disagree with him. Amazon is actually a significantly better name than Nile. And I think Matt you’ve pointed out some of the aspects of it. First off, all words, brand names, or just words in any language are composed of both noise and sound. Amazon has just a perfect blend, that ‘Z’ is very noisy. The ‘Ama-‘ gets a lift up there, and you really addressed it, Matt.

The Amazon is this mysterious place. Amazon is a lot faster than Nile, right? Notice the lack of noise, there’s some sound in there, but not a lot of noise, it’s slower. And I think people have more images around Amazon than Nile. I think the pyramids, right? But when Bezos and his team tacked on the world’s largest bookstore, which is the original tagline, and Amazon being, I think still the world’s the longest river, that actually cemented sort of this notion. So, I think, had they started off with Nile, I think there would’ve been less interest, less traction, less efficiency if the name was Nile.

J.P. Kuehlwein: I just heard an ad in a podcast earlier today. It was all about E-Trade and the ad was all about how you can do more than trading with E-Trade. So, clearly, they’re fighting the interpretations that consumers have, or the associations that they make with the name. And I’m not even going to the “can’t believe it’s not butter,” which would have a hard time selling yogurt or even breads. How do you balance this? Do you look at whether Impossible Foods is for sure going to stay in foods or… How do you discuss the brief? How do you construct a brief, how you discuss the longevity of a name with the customer, et cetera, how does that work?

David Placek: Let me address that in two or three ways. First off, as we start a project, we’re really, at Lexicon, concerned with two things. How do you want the brand to behave, and what’s the future like. Where are you going in the future? So, with Impossible Foods, we asked the question about, where does this go? You’re making some cheeses, you’re making some meats, are you going to be making bread or yogurt and things like this? And so, we knew from the very beginning where they were going to go, right. And we always ask that because we don’t want to pigeonhole someone. “I can’t believe it’s butter” which you just used is a great example of, wow, you have just put a bunch of stakes in the ground and you better want to be and need to be in the butter business, right.

So, we want to give clients, we call them platforms, not just really just a name, but a platform. I’ll give you an example, Swiffer, which we created for P&G. At the time, they had a mop, they’d put together some technology, it actually it’s been very successful, I think you know and your audience will be very familiar with this. But at the time, they also knew that they could do more with the technology, that fibers that pick up dust and dirt clings to it, and things like this.

So, we abandoned mop, right. First off, we also knew that people hated the mop. So, we wanted to really move away from that nomenclature. And so, there’s this name Swiffer, right. Now, I think it’s a 6 or $7 billion brand in 12 or 13 countries, maybe more by now, but you can see that’s a platform, it doesn’t lock them in. It doesn’t even lock them into cleaning although we knew from them that it would always… their charter would always be cleaning things as efficiently and effectively as possible. But let’s not limit ourselves, and let’s think about things as platforms to market products, not as a single word.

Matthew Quint: David, you’ve just given a great slide into the other half of this equation, right. We’ve spoken specifically about names and most of these are kind of the leading names, the overall organization name, or some cases of specific brand of a company name. How do you also think about this idea of, “where you go next and what’s coming,” in terms of the architecture? Where have you worked on some examples like that? How do you think about both the core name, but then also how do you think about the architecture of other opportunities that may come up for that company, or even expansions for that brand?

David Placek: Sub-branding, brand architecture, and what some people refer to as ‘branded ingredients’ are fundamental to the success of a product. And we see companies missing these opportunities all the time. This sub-branding underneath the core brand like Swiffer, they’re great tools to communicate to the marketplace and to consumers – and, by the way, to retailers – that, “Hey, we are still innovating.” We’re listening to our customers and we’re making things that they want. So, you have a Swiffer WetJet, right. Now, that could have been Swiffer WetMop, something like that. No, you want to communicate a different personality to things. And all that does is, it creates halo around the Swiffer brand, and it does communicate to the marketplace that these people are moving, they’re making progress, they’re innovators.

J.P. Kuehlwein: Matt mentioned something interesting, which is the possible appeal to a subgroup of users or fans of the brand who might get excited even if the general audience might not understand it. Is that a key consideration when you develop a name, i.e. how do the fans, the employees, or other people react? And how do you go about it? Do you do research, or is naming in the end, less of a democratic thing and you’re not asking?

David Placek: No, research is an important part of what we do here at Lexicon, certainly for a corporate rebrand and we do a lot of those. And a large part of it by the way is because people early on chose a descriptive name or something that sort of was inflexible for – or didn’t give them the flexibility, I should say – for where they wanted to go. So, we’ll do a lot of research there, and we almost always do some research first with employees, to understand not so much their thoughts on a particular name, but where they’re going, what’s their attitude about the behavior of the company and the future of company and their challenges, right. With that information, and of course, we get that from the executives too, we’re much better able to develop a name that is strategic in terms of that building block for the future.

So, it’s not at all just kind of a seniority contest. We do listen to the marketplace, we do listen to employees quite intensely. And that also gives, even though they may not select the name, it gives them a sense and a true sense, a sincere sense that they were part of a process by giving us that data. If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, commitment to building a brand really determines a brand success. So, you really want the teams onboard when the name is launched and announced.

Matthew Quint: Globalization, right, growing has been growing, obviously, an impact especially with expansions in Asia and the greater influence of Western brands in Asia, and now, of course, the Asian brands coming to the west, how do you go through that process in terms of the translation of names across cultures?

David Placek: So, we’ve developed two things here. First off, heavy investments in linguistics, language acquisition, the differences between languages. We have a staff of linguists here, all PhDs, and then we have 97 linguists in 57 countries that work for Lexicon and they’re the core or the heart of our engine around them evaluating names. They can do research with consumers or professionals, so that we essentially guarantee that our names, when chosen by a company, will travel the marketplace. 99% of the time we avoid having an alternative name. Sometimes that happens in one country, you’re going into 15 countries, the name works incredibly well in 14 countries, but linguistically it is just problematical in one country or it’s legally problematical, so, we have to make some adjustments. But we do everything here we can, we have an enormous database that goes way beyond definitions. It goes into cultural issues to help our clients do that.

J.P. Kuehlwein: We’re talking global. You just brought up legal. If we now add social media and everything being visible everywhere, has this become a nightmare? Before, you would do dealing with the couple of hundreds of names in your country or in the couple of countries, and there were many names you never heard of because they were living somewhere locally. Now, everything that’s local is global as well. What’s the impact of everything being visible on the internet?

David Placek: Names have always been formed, but because of all these innovations, largely driven by the internet, you’ve mentioned social media, there’s Google, there’s Spotify, there’s all this entertainment – we have a very distracted consumer. And so, what’s happening is, and we see this all the time in the research we do, names, while always important, are elevated to a much more strategic level, right? And we’re really almost on a war path to persuade, to bring, I guess, persuade clients, but to bring them to a point of view that brand names should now represent your most distinctive and your most memorable asset. As we move into the future with more clutter of course, but also as artificial intelligence and augmented reality and more voice things like voice directions, like Echo and Alexa coming in, what’s happening is, sound is moving ahead of things like color and logos.

So, because now you’re going to get in a car, you might talk to your car, but you also might request something, right. So, we’ve got to have these names that, really sort of, that technology can read and respond to. And so, distinctiveness, memorability, and sound quality of those names, moving to sort of a combination of noise and really strong signals. That’s becoming more important. Logos, identity are still very strategic and important, but I think the mix is changing, which of course is good news for us at Lexicon, even though it means more work and I think more investments in the future around linguistics, cognitive science, sound, symbolism, research, all these things we’re doing right now. We’re entering into a very exciting time for Lexicon.

J.P. Kuehlwein: Names can age and companies with it or rather the other way around, the names age with the company, with the technology, with the product. And if we just talk about BlackBerry or Nokia or Xerox or Corning, these were all fantastic names. They are still names that are recognized, but the companies need to evolve and become something completely different from what we all have in mind. How do you look at that when a company comes to you? How do you look at, let’s say BlackBerry comes back and said, well, no, you wouldn’t recognize it anymore from who we used to be, how do you decide whether you can keep, whether you need to evolve or whether you need to completely abandon the name?

David Placek: That’s also an issue we deal with here, clients come to us in that situation. The first phase is to ask them, how did you get to where you are? Okay. And then to look at what equities they’ve lost, and what negative equities they may have gained over this time. And if we don’t find a lot of negative equities, except maybe BlackBerry when the technology world said, take a left, they went right, they didn’t do the touch screen, those kinds of things, we all know those stories. We would probably say to them, you don’t need to change your name, okay. What you do need to do is get back on the right technology ramp here, and you still have credibility.

If a company comes to us and they say, look at our bad press, look at the mistakes we’ve made and look from our research or we do research for them, and people have lost a lot of credibility. We just say, look, there’s a tradeoff here between the investment of a new brand and trying to sort of go from, you’re down here at a level and you’re going up to this level. It’s going to be hard to do, right. I’ll give you an example of this. This is not research we did. Toyota is a client of ours, and I just was privy to the story, and it’s very old now and public information, but they were looking at building, they wanted a luxury car, right. And they talked to a number of consumers and they knew that they could manufacture a luxury car and sell it under the Toyota brand. It could be, I don’t know if this was the number, the Toyota 500, the Toyota 850, 550 … something like a BMW.

But they also knew that there was a larger number of customers out there who said, I believe Toyota could make a car like that, but I’m not buying it. I’m going to go to Mercedes. I’m going to go to BMW or Audi for that. So, they made that decision that, okay, we can slog through this with the – I’m going to call it the Toyota 550 – or we can make a commitment and investment here to start again. And of course, that’s the story of Lexus, which is a beautiful name by the way. Again, we did not do that. So, that’s the kind of issues we think, where are you from an equity, a credibility standpoint? What’s your interest in keeping this name or your interest in letting it go? And then, how much is it going to take to sort of establish a new name, because different categories, if you’re simply a digital brand and you don’t have any packaging, you don’t have any retail presence, changing a name is a lot easier and a lot less expensive than if you were the Coca-Cola company. I mean, you can imagine what that would cost.

Matthew Quint: I wonder what kind of a litmus test, phrasing or thought you have sometimes when you’re down to those last few choices with a brand and kind of landing it.

David Placek: We almost always do this with all of the names we present. Because we’ll put it in a context relevant to the client, right. It might be, we take a screenshot of their current website, we put in the new name, or we’ll get a press clipping, something like “the president has been interviewed and will change the name.” So, it becomes real. And then, we look at that and we sit around tables here and the question is, is that believable? Would I believe that? And that to us is one of the best tests of the name, because what we’ve learned, just in experience, but also by the research we’ve done is, consumers will tell us, it doesn’t really matter to me whether I like the name or it fits the concept, to me, it’s about believability.

And we really got some great insights on that when we did research for, and continue to do research for Intel on their names. And I remember in a focus group in, I think it was probably London or Paris, for Pentium, where the group literally said, well, I don’t really know what Pentium is, but I do believe that if it’s in my computer, I’m going to be better off. And that was kind of an awakening for me. So, we try to use that drill. We almost always just do quantitative research now, but we try to put in drills like that so we can measure believability.

J.P. Kuehlwein: So David, how do you feel and then think about insurance companies that are called Oscar, mattresses that are called Lisa, HR software that’s called Bambi? Is that good?

David Placek:  A better way to address that is, and I’m often asked this question, what are the latest trends in naming? And the answer to that is, there’s only one trend in naming and that is imitation, right. So, let’s talk about Oscar that I don’t really know anything about. So, it’s never a good thing to talk about things you don’t know anything about, but I think I can make a point here, here you have this very large, weighty, older, traditional insurance category, and a lot of skepticism with insurance companies, whether it’s State Farm or whoever. And so, someone comes out and they say, we’re not like those other guys. We don’t want any part of that. We’re friendly, we’re approachable, we’re Oscar. That might well be very effective.

And I’m assuming, because I think now we have all these imitating things out here, that it probably worked for one of these companies and then people see it in other categories and they start jumping on, and then sooner or later we start to go too far and we get something like Bambi. I don’t know anything about Bambi. I’m just very careful about those imitative names. They can be very effective, but most of the time when you get to the third imitative name, they’re beginning to fall off and become less and less effective. In other words, they’re not likely to produce a strong signal.

Matthew Quint: Are there cases that you can think of where a sort of more functional name is a really important thing?

David Placek: When you have something that the marketplace is looking for, or even if the marketplace doesn’t know about it, but you know they will want it to be very functional and I’ll say highly suggestive. Let’s go back in time, I’m going to say that DieHard batteries came out somewhere in the early to mid-fifties. At the time batteries were not very reliable, and they came out with some new technology that said that… and in fact they were more reliable. And so, to call out that single feature at a time when the marketplace was dissatisfied, that’s a strategic brand name, DieHard. And it’s also a metaphor, we use that “man, that person’s a diehard football fan” or something like that. So, it works.

But you have to really think about what’s unique about what we’re describing here or suggesting, so that you don’t just become like everybody else. Because when you look at most product lines and most competitive marketplaces, the preponderance of names will be descriptive or suggestive in nature, right? And that goes back to where we started, with “don’t tell the story, build some blocks to tell your story.” Most people want to tell their story in the name. And sometimes you can do it like DieHard batteries, but most of the time you want to get attention, which means be distinctive, be different.

J.P. Kuehlwein: And I guess then, would you say that if luxury brands or some lifestyle brands or some connoisseur kind of connected brands torture us with their names, I’m thinking of Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Armani Giorgio, et cetera, et cetera, is that also equity? i.e You need to work, you need to make yourself knowledgeable, you need to kind of train your tongue to get there and that’s just part of the equity, or do you reject that as a name giver?

David Placek: There’s a couple levels stance to that. So, let’s talk about Louis Vuitton or Hermès, right. So, here you have this reputation of status, and it’s also French, we actually know from research in the luxury category that French brands and accents, and even if you can’t pronounce it for food, for wine, and for things like jewelry and fashion, really perform well. So, here you have these older, older brands that have been out there. Yes, do people mispronounce those names and butcher them? Yes. But they still buy them because the pull of those brands for status and superior product is so powerful that it does work. Now, if you were competing with Louis Vuitton and you were now a startup in the south of France, you would not want to do a name that was… I mean, you want to be a fit, if you’re French, it should be French, but you wouldn’t want something that maybe is a little more difficult to pronounce like Louis Vuitton.

Matthew Quint: So, one thing we’ve been asking everyone, David, is, what’s one of your favorite brands and why?

David Placek:  I have a few favorite brands. I guess, I’ve been driving BMWs for the last 20 years. So, I love BMWs. Although we don’t wear ties very much anymore, I have an affinity with Hermès ties as a brand, and I have two daughters and my wife, they all have the Hermès scarfs and they have some jewelry from there. And I guess the third one, because I’m a great fly fisherman, I have a real affinity to both the Sage fly rods and the Hardy fly rods. One’s British, one’s American. Those are the ones that come to mind.

J.P. Kuehlwein: Okay. Now, I have a final question for you, David, what does BMW stand for?

David Placek: Bavarian Motor Works.

J.P. Kuehlwein: You found the easy way out, Bayerische Motoren Werke, but good enough. Close enough. I think you would probably agree that they made a good choice by abbreviating their name.

David Placek: That’s a great example of “make it easy”.

Matthew Quint: The other thing we’ve asked other folks is, what sources of information kind of influences you and your business thinking?

David Placek: A couple things. First, I’m a prolific reader. I read a lot of history, but I read a very diverse list of magazines. Wallpaper, to a design magazine, Monocle magazine. There are things in there I’m not even interested in, but what it helps me do, it helps me kind of get in touch with what’s going on out there in places and with people that I may never meet. When I travel, and I do travel extensively, I mean, I haven’t, as you know, everybody is same boat for the last year and a half, but I will always take the opportunity to go someplace that I wouldn’t normally go to. And I kind of push myself to do that, a different part of the city. Well, what’s Korean food like here, right, those type of things, just observe people. If you’re in marketing and you’re not curious about people, you shouldn’t be in marketing. You got to keep tapping into culture.

Matthew Quint: Well, thank you again, David, this has been a real pleasure. I think a lot of insights as people are thinking about names and architectures. So, thank you again for being with us today.

David Placek: Oh, you’re welcome. It was a pleasure.