Is this organization being authentic by giving itself
a fake name?
photofrom digitalcontnentproducer.com
There’s a funny little news tidbit in Sunday’s New York Times Business section, right below Tommy Hilfiger’s engagement announcement (as if that’s business news?). It’s a paragraph about a design & communications firm, Thornberg & Forester . Neither Thornberg nor Forester exist or ever existed as real people. Thornberg & Forester is an advertising agency with a fake name .
Is there any way that giving your organization a fake name is a good idea?
Sometimes, fake names can work.
There are lots of organizations with fake business names, names that don’t refer to any real person or place. Often, these fake names are retail brands (e.g., Hollister, Victoria’s Secret, Gilly-Hicks). While it sometimes does bother me that these brands have fake origins, they can be effective when the names are used by the people within the organization to craft the organization’s products. The fake name is supposed to keep organization members aligned around the aspirational brand identity that the name evokes.
The name ‘Thornberg & Forester" is supposed to sound stodgy. The name follows a naming convention that, in advertising as well as other industries, is intended to establish the credibility of the organization on the basis of the reputations of the founders (e.g., Saatchi & Saatchi ).
If Thornberg & Forester was trying to present itself as something it was not, by choosing a name that conjures up images of a white shoe law firm (like a Sidley & Austin ), we’d think of is as a poseur. We would fault it for pretending to be something it is not– a sure definition of being inauthentic .
But Thornberg & Forester isn’t trying to fool us by presenting itself as it wishes to be seen. Instead, Thornberg & Forester present itself as being the opposite of who it wants to be .
Why the fake name?
Supposedly, the organization chose their fake name as a way to get attention for the organization (which is small and new) by helping it stand out. The firm’s founders argue that this name makes the organization distinctive.
Tim Leberecht , writing over at cnet news.com/Matter/Anti-Matter and his company’s frogblog, explains it as:
…the fake name that promises one thing and delivers another , a situationist way of manipulating the public perception."
Leberecht applauds Thornberg & Forester for this organizational-branding strategy, concluding:
Nowadays, you must meta-tag your brand if you want to stand out from the crowd. You must generate attention by distraction. Your brand story is the story of your brand.
But does this fake name really work for Thornberg & Forester?
Beyond getting them attention (e.g., the NYT mentions, a few blog posts ) what does this fake name do for them?
— The fake name demonstrates the organization’s cleverness. The name is a "joke" If you are in on the joke, Thornberg & Forester looks like & itself to be (maybe) lighthearted, playful, unconventional, and so on.
But for how long does the name get read as a joke? People get tired of hoaxes and jokes . At what point does the fake name work against them, by not supporting the identity that they really claim or want?
— The fake name might be an effective tool for sorting out potential clients. On the plus side, clients who are in on the joke might be attracted by the organization’s sense of humor. The name might help Thornberg & Forester attract clients with a soupcon of rebelliousness or a comparably lighthearted approach to parts of the business. Maybe clients who are in on the joke are more inclined to appreciate the kind of creativity that characterizes Thornberg & Forester’s work.
On the negative side, clients may approach the organization expecting the firm to be like its name… those who are attracted initially by the the surface symbolism of the firm’s name may be disappointed, if not annoyed, to be mislead in this way. As PR guru Ed Moed explains, Thornberg & Forester’s fake name is, at best, confusing.
Thornberg & Forester’s use of a fake name also raises some important authenticity questions:
1. Why didn’t the three founders use their own names? (Was "Thornberg & Forester" just a way to around fighting over who got first billing?) What’s so wrong about being Keihner, Matz, & Meredith ?
2. If you listen to Thornberg & Forester, it says that the firm
… believes all projects and campaigns must start with a powerful
message coupled with the right medium to communicate it. The team
brings together innovative people who deliver bold ideas by generating
creative with a strategic backbone.
But, what exactly is the ‘powerful message’ from Thornberg & Forester that starts their relationships with potential clients? Can effective corporate communications, and relationships, start with an intentional misrepresentation?
Is this organization being authentic by giving itself a fake name?
What do you think?
Share your comments, below. And, if you enjoyed this post, use the ‘share this’ link to email it to a friend.
Originally posted June 16
Technorati Tags: brand building , image , corporate names , Thornberg & Forester , authenticity , authentic , identity