What's in a (Brand) Name?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose would
By any other name smell as sweet."

Juliet can be forgiven for not understanding the real connection between names and the things to which they are attached. It was not until nearly a century later that John Locke would formalize the study of semiotics in his Essay on Human Understanding.

Fast forward to the late 20th century, and research began to reveal changes in how humans recognize and interpret brand names. Continuing with the theme from our previous post on neuroplasticity, the study done at UCLA found that brand names are recognized almost as quickly as common nouns.

Even more interesting, when the researchers displayed brand names on the left hand side of a computer screen, recognition speed increased even more. This suggests that brands are more naturally associated with the right-hand - or emotional - side of the brain.

The study, published in the journal Brain & Language, demonstrates that brands are insinuated deeper into our culture than many would suspect. This is somewhat corroborated by a study done by Millward Brown Optimor on the impact of brand names on perceptions of employers. In essence MBO found that better-known employers were perceived as better places to work regardless of whether or not the respondent had any direct knowledge of what it was like to work at any one of the companies tested. Familiarity appears to breed preference.

The lesson is that your employer brand does matter - a lot - when it comes to attracting the right talent. If you are not well known, people will be more suspicious of you as an employer. ("If they're so good, why haven't I ever heard of them?") In today's fast-moving, social media world, can you afford to start the war for talent with such a handicap?

As for Romeo, I wonder if Juliet would have fallen for the same guy named Hiram.