Back in February I did a fairly lengthy comparison of online shopping services.  One of the things I noted in the concluding comments of that post was the fact that Google's shopping search, Froogle, was decent enough… but not an obvious choice.  Why?  Because of the name.  Unless people specifically knew that Froogle was a shopping search service, I doubt few would use it.

 

Google must have come to the same conclusion.  They've renamed the service Google Product Search.  Marissa Mayer, VP of search products and user experience, told Search Engine Land that the old name Froogle was coined at a time when Google didn't quite yet understand the dynamics of product launches: 

I think Ms. Mayer is right about the benefits of a better product name.  Google Product Search tells people exactly what the service is designed to do.  Froogle, on the other hand, says nothing… especially if you don't get the play on words.

 

This got me thinking about a conversation Matt and I had a few days ago about the design of a product we're working on.  From day one the product has been built with functionality in mind.  The folks creating it have spent countless hours building in some great functionality that's easy to use.  They've been looking at the entire project from a user's perspective:  what do people like… what turns them off… what have other people done that worked/didn't work, etc.

 

But the one thing missing from the equation was the naming scheme.

 

As Matt and I began to fine-tooth-comb the product, we started noticing countless instances of features that were great… but vaguely named or described.  So we started thinking about ways to rename or describe different aspects of the project so that first-time users would not only be able to jump right in and use them, but could also quickly and easily understand exactly what they were.

 

As it turns out, it's very easy to build a great product with less-than-stellar naming.  I think it's easy because, as you spend time working on a product, you forget that your knowledge of said product is much greater than that of the people who will ultimately use it.  If you're the one designing a product or service, you understand how it works.  But you aren't the one who'll be using it… people with no clue as to what it does will be.

 

Google learned their lesson with Froogle.  As another example, look at Apple.  Apple seems to be taking a similar path with some of their recent products, as well.  Most of us know what an iPod is these days.  But was that really the best name for a music player?  If Apple's marketing department wasn't the epitome of gotta-have-it, iPod could have turned out to be a poorly-named flop.  But look at some of their newer products:  iTV (Apple TV)… iPhone… iPod Nano.  Those are all pretty obvious (now that iPod is a household name we can quickly gather that an iPod Nano is a little iPod).

 

The lesson here is that naming is not only important, but can also mean the difference between success and failure.  This is particularly true for new products that consumers aren't familiar with.  If someone can't tell from the name of your service what its purpose is you may be shooting yourself in the foot.  All of these Web 2.0 companies with strange, irrelevant names better have good marketing departments behind them.  And they better keep their fingers crossed for some word of mouth advertising.

 

And remember:  what's obvious to you isn't always as obvious to the rest of the world.