{"id":1452552,"date":"2025-11-11T10:48:59","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T09:48:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/?post_type=articles&p=1452552"},"modified":"2025-11-13T09:44:40","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T08:44:40","slug":"when-nonsense-names-make-business-sense","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/articles\/when-nonsense-names-make-business-sense\/","title":{"rendered":"When Nonsense Names Make Business Sense"},"featured_media":1452553,"template":"","meta":{"_has_post_settings":[]},"schools":[],"areas":[537],"subjects":[424],"class_list":["post-1452552","articles","type-articles","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","areas-branding","subjects-marketing"],"custom-fields":{"wpcf-article-leadin":["Brand names without inherent meaning can spark curiosity and engagement, boosting consumer interest and investment, writes Antonis Stamatogiannakis."],"wpcf-article-body":["Marketers are often told that a great brand name must mean something. The logic seems unassailable: a meaningful name \u2013 say, \u201cLeaf\u201d for an eco-friendly product or \u201cZoom\u201d for a video-conferencing tool \u2013 immediately communicates purpose and makes the brand easier to remember. In theory, semantic clarity equals market success.\r\n\r\nYet in practice, some of the world\u2019s most admired brands often break that rule. Think of Etsy, Spotify, Haagen-Dazs, or Goop. None of these names carry inherent meaning, yet each has carved out a distinctive and powerful identity.\r\n\r\nIn fact, \u201cmeaningless\u201d names \u2013 what we call non-semantic names \u2013 can actually make business sense. Across four studies involving thousands of consumers, my coauthors Polina Landgraf of University of Virginia and Jonathan Luffarelli of Montpellier Business School and I found that non-semantic brand names can spark curiosity, heighten engagement, and ultimately improve brand evaluations<\/a>.\r\n\r\nIn other words, a name that says nothing at all can make people care more.\r\n\r\nThe Curiosity Effect<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhen consumers encounter something unfamiliar, their brains itch to make sense of it. A non-semantic name doesn\u2019t fit neatly into their existing mental categories. It feels novel, ambiguous, and slightly puzzling\u2014and those qualities arouse curiosity.\r\n\r\nCuriosity, in turn, is a powerful motivational force. Decades of psychology show that when curiosity is triggered, people seek information more actively and process it more deeply. In marketing terms, that means they are more likely to read, watch, click, and think. And when the information they discover is compelling, curiosity amplifies its persuasive impact.\r\n\r\nSo, while a name like Leaf instantly tells consumers what a brand stands for, a name like Leuf might make them pause \u2013 and that momentary pause can be gold. If the subsequent story or product information satisfies the curiosity that pause creates, evaluations rise dramatically.\r\n
Names that spark curiosity invite deeper engagement.<\/blockquote>\r\nWe first tested this idea in the real world, analyzing 6,487 crowdfunding campaigns for technology products across 22 countries on Kickstarter. After controlling for campaign design, quality, popularity, and country effects, we found that brands with non-semantic names raised 17.1% more funding on average than those with semantic names. For the average campaign, that meant an extra $17,281 in investor backing.\r\n\r\nThat\u2019s a striking effect for something as simple \u2013 and as inexpensive \u2013 as a name.\r\n\r\nCrowdfunding investors, much like consumers, encounter hundreds of options at once. The first thing they see is often the brand name. Our data show that names that spark curiosity invite deeper engagement: backers click, explore, and eventually invest more.\r\n\r\nTo ensure that the effect wasn\u2019t a fluke of platform dynamics, we moved into controlled experiments. In one study, participants were introduced to a new generative-AI assistant. Some saw it branded with a semantic name, \u201cBrownie.\u201d Others saw it branded with a non-semantic name, a random letter combination derived from the same word (for instance, \u201cRowiben\u201d or \u201cBerwoni\u201d). Everything else \u2013 the description, visuals, and information \u2013 was identical.\r\n\r\nConsumers were then asked how much they\u2019d be willing to pay for a monthly subscription. On average, participants offered 32% more for the AI assistant with the nonsense name. The meaningless version didn\u2019t merely avoid confusion; it created intrigue.\r\n\r\nOur third study confirmed the psychological mechanism. Participants evaluated a crowdfunding campaign for a reusable \u201csmart\u201d notebook. In one condition, the brand name was semantic (Sovereign). In another, it was non-semantic (Orbi). We measured participants\u2019 curiosity after seeing only the campaign preview, then their persuasion and willingness to invest after they read the full description.\r\n\r\nThe findings were clear: non-semantic names triggered significantly higher curiosity, which in turn increased persuasion and willingness to invest. Statistically, curiosity fully mediated the relationship between name type and investment intent.\r\n\r\nIn plain terms: the meaningless name made people want to know more\u2014and once they knew more, they liked the brand better.\r\n\r\nThe Limits of Curiosity<\/strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, curiosity alone isn\u2019t enough.\r\n\r\nOur final study, conducted in the context of cryptocurrency investing, showed that the advantage of non-semantic names disappears when there\u2019s no compelling information to satisfy the curiosity they provoke.\r\n\r\nParticipants were shown webpages resembling Coinbase listings for a new cryptocurrency. When the page included credible information \u2013 returns, popularity rankings, third-party endorsements \u2013 participants were significantly more willing to invest in the coin with the non-semantic name (Mounzie) than the one with a semantic name (Brownie).\r\n\r\nBut when all that information was removed, the difference vanished. Without substance to discover, curiosity quickly fades. The lesson for marketers is critical: curiosity amplifies persuasion only when there\u2019s something worth discovering.\r\n\r\nRethinking the \u201cRules\u201d of Naming<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFor decades, branding textbooks have emphasized clarity and meaning in name design. The assumption is that consumers prefer names that help them quickly identify what a product is or does.\r\n\r\nThat logic still holds \u2013 especially when the name\u2019s meaning is congruent and communicates the benefits of the product itself. \u201cMountain,\u201d for instance, is an effective semantic name for a brand of trail mix. An emerging problem with this approach is that the semantic landscape that consumers hold in their heads gets saturated fast. Every new brand name conveying meaning automatically reduces the potential of subsequent meaningful names to convey what they aim to. For instance, the brand name Linkedin puts obstacles for newer brand names\u2019 ability to emphasize any benefit related to \u201clinks\u201d, even if the \u201clink\u201d refers to URLs, links in a supply chain, or some engineering process.\r\n\r\nOur research provides an alternative path. Instead of taking the risk of a meaningful name that could be overshadowed, a bit of semantic mystery can be a competitive advantage \u2013 especially when the goal is to stand out, invite exploration, or convey innovation (e.g., in technology-driven categories). Brands like Etsy and Klarna succeed not because their names explain themselves, but because they invite consumers to ask, \u201cWhat is that?\u201d\r\n\r\nThe Managerial Takeaways<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe broader implication is that meaning is not always meaningful. In an attention-scarce marketplace, a touch of \u201cnonsense\u201d can work precisely because it disrupts cognitive autopilot. For managers deciding between a clear, descriptive name and an unusual, non-semantic one, here\u2019s what to consider:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Use curiosity strategically. Non-semantic names are most effective when they serve as an entry point into a rich story. Make sure the rest of your brand communication rewards the curiosity the name evokes.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Mind the information environment. A nonsense name without meaningful follow-up content can confuse or frustrate consumers. Pair such names with clear, compelling messaging \u2013 on websites, packaging, or in crowdfunding pitches\u2014that satisfies the initial intrigue.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Match the name to the market. Curiosity works best in contexts that encourage exploration \u2013 technology, lifestyle, or fashion, for example. In high-risk or utilitarian categories (like insurance or healthcare), semantic clarity still matters.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Think of naming as an investment. Our crowdfunding analysis suggests that choosing a non-semantic name could raise average consumer engagement and funding by more than 17%. For startups and innovators, that\u2019s a material performance boost at zero marginal cost.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nBranding experts have long preached that clarity and meaning are the hallmarks of an effective name, but in many contexts, a little bit of nonsense can go a long way. When crafted and supported thoughtfully, meaningless names don\u2019t confuse consumers, they captivate them. And in a world competing for scarce attention, curiosity may just be the most meaningful asset a brand can own.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u00a9 IE Insights.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis paper was partially funded by the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigaci\u00f3n MCIN \/AEI \/10.13039\/501100011033 \/ FEDER, UE Grant No. PID2022-138729OA-I00."],"wpcf-audio-article":["https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/PlayAI_When_Nonsense_Names_Make_Business_Sense.mp3"],"wpcf-article-extract":["Brand names without inherent meaning can spark curiosity and engagement, boosting consumer interest and investment, writes Antonis Stamatogiannakis."],"wpcf-article-extract-enable":["1"]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles\/1452552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articles"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1452553"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1452552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"schools","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/schools?post=1452552"},{"taxonomy":"areas","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/areas?post=1452552"},{"taxonomy":"subjects","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/subjects?post=1452552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}