Cited from real sources 6 min read Updated September 2026

A framework by David Placek

David Placek's Naming Process: Identify, Invent, Implement

David Placek's naming process has three steps. Identify. Invent. Implement. The goal is a name that carries an advantage. Placek founded Lexicon Branding. His firm named Sonos, Microsoft Azure and Vercel. It also named Windsurf and Swiffer. And it named BlackBerry and Intel's Pentium. His central claim makes founders uneasy. A descriptive name gives up the one advantage you hold before launch. The name your team finds comfortable is seldom the right one.

The framework

Why a descriptive name costs you something

Most founders treat the name as a label they have to settle before the real work starts. Placek treats it as the only asset you can compound from day zero, and the argument turns on two ideas.

The first is cumulative advantage. A name is the word customers say more often than any other word about you. So every impression either deposits into the same account or scatters. The second is the one founders skip.

Why not start with an advantage in the marketplace and you won't get an advantage if you're descriptive?

Placek, on asymmetric advantage Watch at 15:48

His example is blunt. Call yourself Cloud Pro when ten other cloud services exist and you have opted out of standing for anything. Nothing else in your launch can do what a name does: arrive with an advantage already attached.

The process that produces those names is smaller than its reputation:

first, we have to identify then we invent and then we implement.

Placek, on the three steps Watch at 18:55

Placek calls it a combination of creativity and discipline, not rocket science. The discipline is the half founders drop.

How to apply it

How do you name a company using Placek's process?

Seven steps across the three phases.

Phase 1 · Identify

1

Write down the behavior you want, in both directions.

How do you behave now, and how do you want to behave next? Then the same for the market: how should it behave toward you? Placek treats this as bidirectional, the way a building's architecture tells you how to act inside it.
2

Draw the diamond before you write a single name.

Four corners. How you define winning. What you have to win. What you need to win. What you have to say to win. This is the exercise Placek gives a YC founder with two weeks and no name.

on the top of that diamond put the word win

Placek, giving the exercise to a pre-launch founder Watch at 56:17

Phase 2 · Invent

3

Kill the big brainstorm. Run pairs instead.

Lexicon uses two or three small teams of two people. Placek ran large group sessions when he started and stopped after the analysis showed the winning names were never coming from the crowd.
4

Treat it as a treasure hunt, not a vote.

Generate far more candidates than feels reasonable, then funnel down. The goal is coverage of the possibility space first, judgment second.
5

Use sound, not just meaning.

Lexicon funded years of research into sound symbolism: what the letters signal before a listener processes meaning. Sonos is a palindrome; Swiffer sounds like the motion it performs.

Phase 3 · Implement

6

Screen for trademark and cultural meaning before you fall in love.

Linguistic filters across languages and a trademark pass eliminate most of the shortlist. Run them early so the finalists are names you can own.
7

Pick the name that splits the room.

Tension in the argument is the signal you are looking for. Unanimous comfort means you have chosen something safe, and safe reads as invisible in a crowded category.

We don't use large brainstorming sessions. I did when I first started the company. I used freelancers.

Placek, on why pairs beat crowds Watch at 22:14

Boundary conditions

When does the naming process fail?

Works best when

You are pre-launch, or the current name is costing you search and recall
Competitors crowd the category and every one of them sounds descriptive
One person can hold the decision instead of a committee optimizing for agreement

Fails when

Group consensus scores the shortlist, which selects for the least objectionable name
Domain availability drives the decision instead of the name driving the domain
You expect the name to carry positioning the product and pitch have not done

The first failure is the one that kills good candidates. Placek describes a zone where a name is familiar but carries almost no distinctiveness, and the room reads that comfort as agreement. There is consensus. It is a safe choice. It is not remarkable at all. The strong candidate is still on the table at that point, with two people arguing about it.

The third failure is a boundary worth naming, because it is where operators split. Placek's claim is about the asymmetric advantage a name buys you before launch. April Dunford's competitive alternatives method starts one level up: what customers would use if you did not exist. It says no name rescues positioning you have not done. Both are right, in sequence.

Where Placek has a close ally is Rory Sutherland. The right amount of weird makes the same bet from the other direction: familiar enough for people to understand it, strange enough to be interesting. Polarization is what that tradeoff feels like from inside the conference room.

the difference between an okay name and the right name that actually creates a strategic advantage.

Placek, on okay versus right Watch at 02:00

The sources

Where Placek discusses this

18:55

Timestamp

Lenny's Podcast · Naming expert shares process for creating billion-dollar brands

The Three Steps of the Lexicon Process

"first, we have to identify then we invent and then we implement."

15:48

Timestamp

Lenny's Podcast · Naming expert shares process for creating billion-dollar brands

Cumulative and Asymmetric Advantage

"you won't get an advantage if you're descriptive."

22:14

Timestamp

Lenny's Podcast · Naming expert shares process for creating billion-dollar brands

Why Small Teams Beat Large Brainstorms

"We don't use large brainstorming sessions."

02:00

Timestamp

My First Million · Naming billion dollar companies isn't just vibes

Why Naming is Strategic Leverage

"the difference between an okay name and the right name that actually creates a strategic advantage."

Useful? Send it to the co-founder who wants to name the company after what it does.

Want the full playbook?

Get 186 positioning & marketing frameworks.

28 frameworks 52 rules 101 heuristics & principles 4 operators

From Geoffrey Moore, Kim & Mauborgne, Alex Hormozi, and 1 more. Drop one .md into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT. Your AI cites practitioners, not guesses.

See the pack

Instant .md download · One-time purchase · No subscription

Related frameworks

Positioning

Personal Monopoly

David Perell

Become the only person who does what you do. Any skill legible enough to copy is a skill with no pricing power.

Positioning

The 10-Step Positioning Process

April Dunford

Five components in a fixed order. Competitive alternatives first, market category last.

Positioning

Smallest Viable Audience

Seth Godin

Name the fewest people you can serve so well they would miss you, then build for exactly them. A constraint, not a growth hack.

Positioning

Beachhead Market Strategy

Geoffrey Moore

Big enough to matter, small enough to lead, a good fit with your crown jewels. How to pick the one segment you commit to.

Why a descriptive name costs you something

How do you name a company using Placek's process?

Write down the behavior you want, in both directions.

Draw the diamond before you write a single name.

Kill the big brainstorm. Run pairs instead.

Treat it as a treasure hunt, not a vote.

Use sound, not just meaning.

Screen for trademark and cultural meaning before you fall in love.

Pick the name that splits the room.

When does the naming process fail?

Works best when

Fails when

Where Placek discusses this

Get 186 positioning & marketing frameworks.

Know when the next expert lands.