Comments on: Re-Branding Blackwater http://www.bsodmyself.com/2009/03/18/re-branding-blackwater/ Now there are three things certain in life -- death, taxes, and BSOD! Fri, 01 May 2009 22:56:06 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Bill O'Goods http://www.bsodmyself.com/2009/03/18/re-branding-blackwater/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Bill O'Goods Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:34:26 +0000 http://www.bsodmyself.com/?p=504#comment-199 BSOD -- I agree with you that Xe is a terrible name. In my real life, I do a lot of corporate and product naming. "Xe" fails on multiple grounds: 1) it is phonologically weak, because the average person won't know how to pronounce it and, the average person hearing it won't know how to spell it; 2) it is not evocative -- the best names are always evocative, whereas "Xe" evokes absolutely nothing. However, I disagree with your position that Blackwater does not need a name change. Your PR idea is actually quite an excellent one, but it won't work. The reason is that mollycoddled, Milquetoasted politicians and executives do not want any searchable association or correlation with the name "Blackwater." It can and will be used against them, even if such use is grossly unfair. It is the reality. In other words, you've got to look at the praxis of the marketplace, even if you don't like the actors therein or the rules. If the company is renamed as XYZ, then there will be few associations between Sen. Greatman and Blackwater and many between Greatman and XYZ and few will make the transitive link. Therefore, in order to do business in the reality of the political environment, Blackwater needs a new name to provide its customers, constituents and supporters will political cover. "Blackwater" is itself a fine, memorable, even evocative name. It's a shame it has to go the way of AirTran (a terrible name) and AYDS (an OK name until AIDS came along), but so it must. "Xe," however, is not that name. BSOD — I agree with you that Xe is a terrible name. In my real life, I do a lot of corporate and product naming. “Xe” fails on multiple grounds: 1) it is phonologically weak, because the average person won’t know how to pronounce it and, the average person hearing it won’t know how to spell it; 2) it is not evocative — the best names are always evocative, whereas “Xe” evokes absolutely nothing.

However, I disagree with your position that Blackwater does not need a name change. Your PR idea is actually quite an excellent one, but it won’t work. The reason is that mollycoddled, Milquetoasted politicians and executives do not want any searchable association or correlation with the name “Blackwater.” It can and will be used against them, even if such use is grossly unfair. It is the reality. In other words, you’ve got to look at the praxis of the marketplace, even if you don’t like the actors therein or the rules. If the company is renamed as XYZ, then there will be few associations between Sen. Greatman and Blackwater and many between Greatman and XYZ and few will make the transitive link. Therefore, in order to do business in the reality of the political environment, Blackwater needs a new name to provide its customers, constituents and supporters will political cover. “Blackwater” is itself a fine, memorable, even evocative name. It’s a shame it has to go the way of AirTran (a terrible name) and AYDS (an OK name until AIDS came along), but so it must. “Xe,” however, is not that name.

]]>