tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post112834138928465987..comments2023-12-08T01:42:31.590-06:00Comments on Cauvin: Contradicting InstinctsRoger L. Cauvinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08969779835314260680noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post-47508706305976349392007-08-13T17:18:00.000-05:002007-08-13T17:18:00.000-05:00Hi, thanks for the critique.It's true that some ex...Hi, thanks for the critique.<BR/><BR/>It's true that some experts and scientific studies have restricted their conclusions on this matter to consumer products. And perhaps it is a "huge" leap to generalize to the B2B market.<BR/><BR/>However, it's nowhere near as big a leap as assuming - as you appear to have done - that descriptive names are okay in the technology sector. I have yet to see a single study supporting that conclusion.Roger L. Cauvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08969779835314260680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post-79127416373288569622007-08-13T16:58:00.000-05:002007-08-13T16:58:00.000-05:00Re: "scientific studies show that names and logs b...Re: "scientific studies show that names and logs bearing little or no resemblence to your product are more effective...". Wow, you took a HUGE leap of faith in applying this singular article on product naming whose final paragraph states "Kahn says the use of odd names seems to work best in products that rely on the senses, such as food or fashion, and would probably not work in a high-stakes product category such as healthcare or financial services."<BR/><BR/>Unless you are a product manager in the consumer sector, this really doesn't apply. In the technology sector, choosing a descriptive name (especially one that might position you in the same category as your top 2 competitors) is not a bad approach.clapointhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706271446980460811noreply@blogger.com