Why you shouldn't use literal brand names in the example of copy.ai

Notice anything funky about this image?

copy.ai is an excellent example of why a literal name isn’t that good of a brand name.

It’s a loaded name.

It comes with a pre-existing meaning and positions them into a box.

A single use-case box.

But what if you become something more?

Like the GTM AI platform, what have they become?

(If they’d start today, they’d probably name themselves gtm.ai).

But their name indicates that they do copy.

Solution?

A way better way is to have an ambiguous name for which you shape the meaning.

So that when you change directions, the name doesn’t work against you.

Yes, you still have to start from scratch and re-shift the market’s perception.

But your name isn’t working against you. And it compounds.

But a literal name makes folks put you into the (wrong) box faster.

That’s why a company like Copytesting re-branded into being Wynter.

It went from being a single-use case literal name into being whatever meaning.

Which came in handy when use cases evolved.

Also, in the no-moats era, the brand is your only moat. And brand name is... well, your brand name, so it's rather important.

You can't even track how your brand compares to your competitors in the category if you're not using a clear, distinctive name. All the data will be skewed by the general search terms.

I do believe there’s an advantage for literal names.

When you’re starting out. Or when you’re planning to offer the same offer in perpetuity.

Wecleanyourdrivewaydotcom– great. Understandable. Simple.

Probably makes more money than 90% of the VC-backed startups.

But for future big brands – nope.