[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
Friday, August 09, 2002 * 12:56 PM EDT USA
At 07:07 AM 8/9/2002, email@example.com wrote that Richard Henderson wrote:
How about www.TheVoiceofThePeople.us ???
We need to be sensitive to what translations from English into other
languages will be of any name. Car manufacturers have gotten into a lot of
trouble and expense in naming their models.
www.TheVoiceofThePeople.us (or some such similar) should help us avoid
something like that. Catchy English acronyms are likely to get us into
trouble if they have directly translatable equivalents in other languages.
Actually the initial "The" is unnecessary in the above formulation. Before
adopting such we would have to be absolutely 100% sure that's in fact what
we would be in the largest, broadest and absolutely democratic sense
Otherwise we'll be no better than the incredible number of named
organizations whose names cleverly signify the exact opposite of what they
are, serving only to market and co-opt the real thing. The outstanding
example is all those places named "The People's Republic of..." I don't
know a one that is (or has been) democratic, republic meaning "governed by
representatives of a widely based electorate."
On the other hand consider the complete meaninglessness (initially, until
they tarnished themselves) of the names Exxon (they paid $6 million bucks
to come up with that name, changing from Humble Oil) and Enron.
Tis a bit of a minefield to be carefully stepped through.
Finally, we ought to keep in mind Steve Case's (AOL) mantra: "Market share,
market share, market share!" That's all he ever wanted. The rest followed
and is legendary history now.
The same is true for us, though with quite a different goal than Mr. Case.