So how did we choose Thinkmeter.com? Actually, it chose itself! Here's how. We sat down in front of computers independently but in the same room, and brainstormed names. We checked names (by submitting WHOIS queries, because we're geeks), and recorded the ones that weren't taken yet in a Google spreadsheet. All brainstorming rules apply: don't judge, write down everything, nothing but happiness, go for quantity. Every 10-15 minutes we'd talk about what sorts of names we were coming up with. A color theme, analogies for decision-making, a name that stood out. This would serve to "recombine" our individual efforts and keep the independent brainstorming going. After we had 80 names and were slowing down, we rated them in the spreadsheet, and picked out the top 5. Then we each added a couple of 'wildcard' picks that one of us liked but the other didn't. (There are two of us, Max and Dan.)
We ended up with a list of 9 names, most of which we'd be happy with (with the exception of the wildcards, which we hoped would be unmercifully banished). Then, we created a Thinkmeter poll (only it wasn't called Thinkmeter then, it was hosted somewhere else) and sent it to 8 other people with a variety of backgrounds: men and women, geeks and marketers. They voted, and lo and behold we got what we hoped: strong signals about what appealed and what didn't. That is, what appealed to OTHERS, we already knew about ourselves. We were happy with the one on top (Thinkmeter), and triumphantly declared the winner with the sound of trumpets ringing!
So why was Thinkmeter so useful in choosing its name?
1.
We had a few specific options in mind. We narrowed our choices down to 9 names.
2.
We cared what other people think. If you can confidently decide yourself, you don't need feedback. Should I get up now? Either hoist yourself out of bed, or roll over. However, in this case we believed that our website domain name should have some base level of broad appeal. In fact, when we tell new people the name, they respond positively surprisingly often, saying things like "I didn't think there were any good names left."
3.
Responding was easy and fun. Responding took a few minutes at most. People like rating, and like offering their opinions. The way the system works now, after you've rated, it takes you directly to the screen where you see what everyone else thought, which people find interesting.
4.
The feedback was pre-digested. As the deciders, we wanted a quick read. Good options float to the top, bad ones sink to the bottom. Per-option comments are gathered in the same place, so we can note patterns. For Thinkmeter, responders said, "best" "like it" "Still like it" "It's catchy". For unmist.com, they said, "I imagine an old woman with a cat and an overstuffed room" "university of mexico-ist?" and "Alright, who is this fog and mist person. Fess up." With those comments grouped, it is easier to note the subtle difference in tone. :)
5.
The feedback separated out into winners and losers. Fortunately, numerous options dropped below 3 immediately, while only two tied for top place at 3.8. (Actually, we tie-break by variance, so Thinkmeter was the choice with more agreement.) This is not decision by committee. We made the poll, chose the options, and made the final call. However, the more obvious the results are, the easier it is to use the feedback.
6.
It was semi-private. We didn't want to put a poll of domain names in public where domain name squatters would snap them up, however unlikely that may be.
Below is a summary of responses. Some are pretty hilarious. We will keep silent on which picks were wildcards, so guess away. Dan confesses he was the "mist and fog person." The primary appeal was that those names were short. Apparently there are other things to consider, too.
We believe there are numerous situations where quick feedback from a small group of people can help make good decisions. Choosing a book for a book club, naming, choosing a day to meet, or a restaurant at which to meet.
Give it a try and let us know what you think!
--Dan and Max
Posts
