From majestic-marketing
Generates evocative, category-defining brand, company, and product names using Igor methodology. Use when naming companies, products, features, or apps.
npx claudepluginhub majesticlabs-dev/majestic-marketplace --plugin majestic-marketingThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
**Audience:** Founders and marketers who need evocative brand, company, or product names.
Brainstorms 5 unique product names with rationales on brand alignment, audience appeal, memorability, and domain/trademark availability. Use for new products, rebrands, or name ideation.
Generates product or company names via structured brief, multi-model candidate generation, two-layer evaluation. Supports greenfield and rebrand modes. Outputs docs/naming/ Markdown files with taxonomy and test kit.
Guides indie founders through startup brand strategy: name generation and evaluation, positioning, voice definition, and visual identity using Hexa's bottom-up framework.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Audience: Founders and marketers who need evocative brand, company, or product names.
Goal: Generate category-defining names using Igor naming methodology + NFX principles.
Names operate like rudders, steering positioning and perception. Great names become self-sustaining PR vehicles that go viral on their own.
Collect before naming:
Start with the brand's emotional core and expand outward:
Free-associate from brand adjectives — write everything without judgment:
Generate 20+ words in each category relevant to positioning, then blend/transform.
Search for words in seemingly unrelated domains to find surprising connections:
Principle: The best names come from lateral thinking. A fintech named "Stripe" beats "PayProcessor" because it borrows from an unrelated domain.
Draw from these emotional trigger categories when brainstorming:
| Category | Evokes | Name-Inspiring Words |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Trust, expertise | Sentinel, Guardian, Apex, Citadel, Anchor, Keystone |
| Novelty | Innovation, discovery | Pioneer, Spark, Nova, Genesis, Catalyst, Frontier |
| Exclusivity | Prestige, insider | Elite, Cipher, Vault, Haven, Summit, Pinnacle |
| Gravity | Power, scale | Titan, Colossus, Forge, Atlas, Mammoth, Monolith |
| Energy | Action, momentum | Bolt, Blaze, Surge, Pulse, Ignite, Velocity |
| Simplicity | Ease, clarity | Breeze, Flow, Glide, Swift, Zen, Clear |
| Safety | Protection, stability | Shield, Harbor, Bastion, Refuge, Bedrock, Anchor |
| Wonder | Amazement, magic | Aurora, Cosmos, Ethereal, Luminary, Prism, Radiant |
Usage: Pick 2-3 categories that match brand positioning, then riff on those themes.
Describes what the business does.
Avoid for company names. They draw from a small keyword pool, causing "brand fade out" (BrandJuice, BrandForward, NameLab = all forgettable).
Key insight: Company names always have context (websites, conversations). Free them to do more productive work.
Greek/Latin morphemes (Acquient, Agilent): Easy trademark, but need massive ad budget, emotionally void.
Poetically constructed (Snapple, Oreo, Google): Fun to say, memorable, viral potential.
Connect to direct human experience (Explorer, Safari, Navigator).
Risk: Overused across industries, similar names = similar positioning.
Evoke positioning rather than describing function.
| Sector | Functional | Experiential | Evocative |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ride share | RideCharge | Lyft | Uber |
| Airlines | Trans World | United | Virgin |
| Computers | Digital Equipment | Gateway | Apple |
Why they win: Rare, nonlinear, multidimensional, creates non-commodity brand.
Map competitor names on this matrix:
Score: -2 (worst) to +5 (best)
| Score | FUNCTIONAL | INVENTED | EXPERIENTIAL | EVOCATIVE |
|-------|-----------|----------|--------------|-----------|
| 5 | | | | [best] |
| 0 | [most] | | | |
| -2 | | | | |
Find the empty quadrant for differentiation.
| Criterion | Measures |
|---|---|
| Appearance | Visual appeal in logos |
| Distinctive | Stands apart |
| Depth | Layers of meaning |
| Energy | Vitality, buzz |
| Humanity | Warmth (imagine as child's nickname) |
| Positioning | Relevance to brand |
| Sound | Pleasing AND easy to say |
| "33" Factor | Word-of-mouth buzz potential |
| Spellable | No confusion |
| Fluency | Brain processes it easily despite being surprising (Impossible Burger, BlackBerry) |
Sound shapes perception. Use these patterns intentionally:
| Sound Type | Effect | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Short plosives (K, P, T, B) | Simple, punchy, down-to-earth | Kodak, Pepsi, TikTok |
| Long vowels (ee, oo, ay) | Regal, expansive, magical | Google, YouTube, PayPal |
| Soft consonants (S, L, M) | Smooth, luxurious, gentle | Tesla, Lexus, Calm |
| Hard consonants (X, Z, K) | Edgy, tech, distinctive | Xerox, Zoom, Slack |
Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel is the most fundamental language structure. Names following this pattern are instinctively easy to learn and recall:
Intentional misspellings create distinctiveness:
For top candidates, count:
Associations:
Slogan potential:
More associations = more cultural depth = stronger name.
"Mirvie draws on Romance languages: Mira means 'objective' in Italian..." Red flag: Linguistics rationale = scam.
"Ikena, a Hawaiian word meaning 'vista'..." Red flag: Meaning irrelevant if audience doesn't speak it.
Bridgescape, Bridgespan, Everbridge, Flybridge Red flag: Generic word pairs = forgettable white noise.
Choosing the name everyone "likes" in research. Consensus = mediocrity. Red flag: If nobody hates it, nobody will love it either. Polarization signals energy — if half the room feels the name is "dangerous," it likely has the strength to cut through market noise. Safe names compound friction; bold names compound advantage.
## Naming Results for [Project]
### Competitive Taxonomy
[Matrix showing competitor clusters]
**Opportunity:** [Underserved quadrant]
### Name Candidates
#### Evocative (Recommended)
1. **[Name]** - [Rationale, associations]
2. **[Name]** - [Rationale]
3. **[Name]** - [Rationale]
#### Experiential
4. **[Name]** - [Rationale]
5. **[Name]** - [Rationale]
#### Invented
6. **[Name]** - [Rationale, sound/feel]
### Evaluation Matrix
| # | Name | Appear | Distinct | Depth | Energy | Human | Position | Sound | "33" | Spell | Fluency | **Total** |
|---|------|--------|----------|-------|--------|-------|----------|-------|------|-------|---------|-----------|
### A.S.S. Test (Top 3)
**[Name 1]**
- Associations: [list]
- Slogans: "[Name]. [Tagline 1]"
### Top Recommendation
**[Name]** (Score: X/50)
Why it wins:
- [Positioning alignment]
- [Category differentiation]
- [Cultural depth]
- [Sound/memorability]
Domain options: [name].com, [name].io, get[name].com
### Proof of Concept
Place top name in real-world contexts to test believability:
- **Headline test:** "[Name] Raises $10M Series A" — does it carry weight?
- **Intro test:** "I work at [Name]" — does it spark curiosity?
- **Search test:** Is it Google-able without competing with dominant results?
### Next Steps
1. Domain availability check
2. Trademark search (USPTO)
3. Social handle check
4. Test pronunciation with 5 people
5. Sleep on it (24 hours)
When called by other skills for naming:
Focus on evocative names that differentiate and dominate.