Naming Billion-Dollar Companies: The Art and Science Behind Great Brand Names

David Placek joined My First Million hosts Sam Parr and Shaan Puri for an in-depth conversation on brand naming strategy. They discussed how billion-dollar brand names are built, and why so many companies get it wrong.

In this episode, they cover:

• The 3-step creative process behind names like Swiffer, Windsurf, and Vercel.
• Why quantity leads to quality and how many names it really takes to find the right name.
• The psychology of power letters and sound symbolism.
• When a company should change its name. And when it shouldn’t.
• How David thinks about AI’s role in brand naming.

If you’re naming a company, launching a product, or reconsidering an existing brand, this episode offers a practical look at the strategy and science behind great brand names.

YouTube | Spotify | Apple Podcasts

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Naming strategy and creative process — building billion-dollar brands with David Placek

Sam Parr:

So listen, David, here’s the deal. I don’t believe that naming your company is that important. Over the next hour, I want you to convince me why I’m incredibly wrong, why picking a good name is going to help me build a billion-dollar startup, and how to name a startup effectively.

Behind you, for people just listening, you’ve got what look like platinum records of names you’ve created: Impossible Burger, Blackberry, Swiffer, Vercel, Windsurf, Pentium, Febreze, Sonos, SlimFast, Microsoft Azure. The hits go on and on.

I’ve always felt like I suck at naming. And if you’re going to pour years of your life into something, you want a name you feel proud of and that gives you the best shot at success. So: change my mind.

David Placek:

Nothing you do in your brand will be used more often or for longer than your name. And it’s not just whether one good name is better than another good name. It’s about getting the right name.

If you get it right, it becomes high-frequency leverage. The name compounds over time. The difference between an okay name and the right name is that the right name creates strategic advantage. Our goal is always to create asymmetric advantage.

A recent example: we changed Codeium to Windsurf. Nobody knew Codeium. People didn’t know how to spell it. They couldn’t search it. SEO was weak. We worked with them over six weeks, changed it to Windsurf, and the brand took off. A name doesn’t do everything, but the right name can launch something.

A right name does three things:

• Gets attention
• Holds attention through processing fluency
• Surprises people

Most people get the third part wrong. They choose names that are comfortable, not surprising.

Sam Parr:

Can you make the stakes real? Give an example where the product and team were basically the same, but the name changed the outcome.

David Placek:

Procter & Gamble came to us with a product they wanted to call Pro Mop. They couldn’t clear it legally.

We looked at the product and said: this isn’t really a mop. It doesn’t have strings. It’s easier to use. Then we researched how people feel about household chores and found that nobody wants to mop. It’s dirty and inefficient.

So we repositioned the product. We gave it some life, some fun, some motion. That became Swiffer.

Around the same time, Clorox launched Ready Mop. That’s a comfortable name. It probably tested well because people immediately understood what it was. But Swiffer became a $5 billion brand. Ready Mop was far smaller.

In the first 12 months especially, the name makes a huge difference. It drives retailer interest, consumer attention, and early momentum.

Sam Parr:

You made an interesting distinction earlier: not a great name, but the right name. And it sounds like founders often default to safe names that disappear into the category. Is that the right read?

David Placek:

Yes. A lot of founders end up with comfortable names because the naming process gets forced. Their lawyer says, “We need paperwork, pick a name,” and they spend a few hours on it.

Right names do three things:

• They’re original in context
• They’re processing fluent
• They’re unexpected

That doesn’t mean they have to be made-up words. But they have to feel familiar enough to process and surprising enough to stand out.

Sam Parr:

Let’s make this concrete. Suppose I’m launching a fiber brand. You look at the market and see Metamucil, Benefiber, Fiber One. What would you do first?

David Placek:

First, we study the category landscape. If everyone is saying “fiber” in the name, our initial hypothesis is probably not to go there.

Then we study the product, the consumer, and the ultimate benefit. We ask:

• How do you define winning?
• What do you have to win?
• What do you need to win?
• What do you need to say?

That gives us a naming strategy.

Shaan Puri:

Assume I don’t have some revolutionary product. It’s just a very good product with good packaging and good go-to-market. What then?

David Placek:

Then we likely move away from “fiber” as the explicit language and toward the ultimate benefit.

Shaan Puri:

Gut health, regularity, metabolism—

David Placek:

Or maybe something simpler: you feel lighter.

That’s where the naming work starts to get interesting. Once you identify that emotional or experiential benefit, you start exploring the territory around it.

We look at Greek roots, expressions, aviation terms, anything related to lift, air, lightness. We call it treasure hunting.

Quantity matters. Most clients generate 50 to 100 names and get stuck. We may generate 2,000. Most of those won’t be good. That’s fine. Quantity leads to quality.

Sam Parr:

And you don’t brainstorm in big groups, right?

David Placek:

Correct. We work in small teams, usually pairs. Brainstorming creates peer pressure and evaluation too early. Over time we found that our best names came from individuals or two-person teams, not big sessions.

We’ll often structure three teams differently:

1. One knows the full product
2. One explores the product plus another dimension, like energy
3. One works from a different adjacent category entirely

That gives us very different naming directions.

David Placek:

If the benefit is “lightness,” maybe one direction leads to something like Feather. Then we test whether that can work in context. Could it sit on a shelf next to category incumbents? Could supporting copy make it legible? If so, it may be promising.

Then trademark review narrows the list.

Shaan Puri:

What are the source areas you search?

David Placek:

Greek roots, Latin roots, mythology, the periodic table, custom internal databases, and cross-category collections. For example, names from small cars and small processors may both end up in a broader “small things” database.

I’m a big believer in synchronicity—connecting seemingly unrelated ideas. That’s often where the best names come from.

Sam Parr:

Do you still come up with names yourself? And how do you get into flow?

David Placek:

Yes. I usually start with a pad and pen and free-associate directions. I may sketch a grid or a treasure map. Then I’ll use web tools and AI systems to ask exploratory questions, not to generate final names.

Usually within 20 minutes I’ve got a few directions worth pushing.

Sam Parr:

You also seem very process-driven around creativity. What mistakes do people make when managing creative teams?

David Placek:

They evaluate too early. They lead when they should encourage.

The word encouragement comes from courage. If people don’t feel safe making imperfect or unusual suggestions, they won’t produce interesting work.

When someone brings an idea, instead of saying:

• “That’s too expensive”
• “That’ll never pass legal”

Say:

• “I wish we could make that affordable”
• “How could we modify it so it clears legal?”

That keeps the person in problem-solving mode.

Another useful response is: “That’s interesting,” or “I wouldn’t have thought of that.” It keeps the energy alive without shutting it down.

Sam Parr:

How do you know when to switch from generating to judging?

David Placek:

We usually work in cycles. After a couple of rounds, over roughly two to two-and-a-half weeks, we stop and assess whether the directions are working.

Then we apply the creative framework, run trademark review, involve linguists for global markets, and use our internal software to assess processing fluency and memorability.

We pay attention to sound symbolism too. Certain sounds imply speed or strength. Letters like P, K, B, D, and Z can matter. X often signals innovation.

Sam Parr:

Can someone get much better at naming on their own?

David Placek:

Yes. One useful habit is to deliberately bring in unrelated stimuli. Before your final pass, read magazines or books you’d never normally touch. Look for unexpected connections. That kind of lateral input often creates a new angle.

Sam Parr:

What famous names were initially rejected?

David Placek:

Almost all of them. Blackberry is a good example. The clients initially resisted it. But our sound-symbolism research suggested B was highly reliable, “black” traveled well, “berry” felt approachable, and most importantly, their big competitors would never have had the courage to use it. That mattered.

Sam Parr:

Quick game. Rate these names: OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok, SpaceX.

David Placek:

• OpenAI: 4
• Anthropic: 8
• Grok: 3 or 4
• SpaceX: 10

SpaceX works because it’s straightforward and the X adds innovation energy.

Sam Parr:

Twitter or X?

David Placek:

I’d probably have stayed with Twitter.

Sam Parr:

Any names you admire that you didn’t create?

David Placek:

DreamWorks and Lexus.

Sam Parr:

You also present names in context, not just as a list.

David Placek:

Exactly. We call that proof of concept. We place the name into believable usage—ads, headlines, product contexts—so clients can feel it. Most people aren’t practiced at making creative decisions. You have to help them experience the idea.

Sam Parr:

I loved your “comfort trap” idea—how safe names become invisible.

David Placek:

Yes. Polarizing names can carry energy. I learned that in part from working with Andy Grove on Pentium. He understood that if a name polarizes people, that often means there’s real force inside it.

Sam Parr:

What about changing a company’s name later?

David Placek:

If the name is wrong, it creates friction. Many founders fear losing equity by changing it, but we haven’t seen that happen when the relaunch is done well and the company tells a clear story about why the change benefits customers.

For younger companies, especially Series A or B, renaming is usually much less traumatic than they think.

Sam Parr:

Could naming skill affect politics?

David Placek:

Absolutely. “Morning in America” is one of the best examples of slogan work in U.S. politics.

Sam Parr:

What books do you recommend?

David Placek:

• Ogilvy on Advertising
• Walter Isaacson’s book on Leonardo da Vinci
• Roger Martin’s books, especially A New Way to Think and Playing to Win

Sam Parr:

How has AI changed your work?

David Placek:

It makes name generation easier for everyone, which means our advantage shifts even more toward judgment. We’ve invested heavily in data and software, and AI strengthens that. Also, many of our current clients are AI companies, so it’s become a meaningful growth area.

Sam Parr:

What does it cost to work with you?

David Placek:

Typically $75,000 to $150,000. Bigger corporate naming projects can reach $200,000. Sometimes we also do nomenclature, positioning, and post-launch tracking.

Sam Parr:

You changed my mind.

David Placek:

Then I’ll leave you with this: draw a line. On one end write “bizarre, absurd, illegal ideas.” On the other, “safe, workable ideas.” In the middle, write “approximate thinking.”

If you give teams permission to work in that middle zone—not finished, not polished, just promising—you’ll see creativity rise.

Sam Parr:

David, thank you for coming on.

David Placek:

My pleasure.

Shaan Puri:

Thank you. We appreciate you.

Sam Parr:

That’s the pod.