Persistence Features

10 Persistent Myths About Brand Names That Need To Be Busted

Since branding became such a significant part of marketing strategies around the world, several unfounded myths have cropped alongside it. A company's brand name is its identifier to the world and a promise that it makes to its buyers. It's obvious why companies are so concerned about getting their branding right, since it can be a make-or-break moment for their marketing.

However, the myths about brand name choice need to be debunked to ensure that companies don't have to worry about falling into the trap of taking unsound advice. Here, 10 members of Forbes Agency Council try to smash as many of them as they can.

Members debunk some common myths about naming your brand.

Photos courtesy of the individual members

1. A Name Is Everything

In today's world, people are searching Google every day for products and services. Having great SEO and making sure your brand is showing up for what you're selling can have an enormous impact on your revenue, instead of just relying on people remembering your brand name. - Marc Hardgrove, The HOTH

2. Brand Names Need To Be Literal

Brand names do not need to be literal -- in other words, they do not need to inherently describe the product or service. Limiting your focus to a literal brand name means you are not looking at the big picture, about what the brand can represent above only features and benefits. Brand names should be hung on a broader sense of identity, not just on what a product is or does. - Stefan Pollack, The Pollack PR Marketing Group

3. Your Brand Name Needs To Sound Cool

People love to tell stories, they have to be able to say your name in their own words. While easy recall and originality are still paramount in a new brand or product name, hugely successful companies are defying traditional "board room" logic. Brands like Whole Foods and The Ordinary clearly have ignored a common myth -- that the brand name "must sound cool." - Raja Sandhu, Raja Sandhu Design Studios

4. Make Your Name Stick, Think Of Product After

All too often, branding is too clever by half. We get so focused on how we can make the brand name stick, that we neglect to focus on the actual product. President Obama has commented/joked on various occasions about running for President during the War on Terror with the name Barack Hussein Obama. What brand strategist would have advised that? Products make names great, not the other way around.  - Julie Gibson, SJ Consulting LLC

5. The Name Will Determine The Brand

People tend to think that the name will affect the way the customers will perceive the brand, and that's completely not true. Think about Apple. How self-explanatory is that for a tech company? What makes a brand memorable is the context built around it. Things like the quality of product/service, customer satisfaction, social media presence, marketing, etc. -- that's what will make the name work. - Solomon Thimothy, OneIMS

6. Don't Be Too Bold With Your Name Choice

With your name, you need to be able to relate to your customers and know the kind of image you want to portray to them. That being said, don't be afraid to be a little bold with your name if it's something your customers can relate to. You can use slang, even profanity, if the customers you are trying to attract have those words in their everyday vocabulary. Being bold can make you memorable. - Jason Hall, FiveChannels Marketing

7. Pick A Name Based On Current Trends

Too often, small businesses and startups try to capitalize on trends when they name their business, such as the .ly movement in tech startups. Names should be designed to last for decades and stand the test of time. When companies leverage fads they run the risk of feeling dated quickly and sounding too similar to their competitors in competitive categories such as tech. - Katie Schibler Conn, KSA Marketing + Partnerships

8. Your Name Depends On The Perfect URL

In any naming in 2020, you spend a lot of time on social handles and URLs. It's pretty interesting that in a world of search, brands try to make worse names to get better URLs and social handles. In reality the name is so important -- you can find ways with URLs and social to make it all work. At the end of the day, the user isn't thinking about it. Just be findable! - Jackson Murphy, Pound & Grain

9. You Can Find The Perfect Name For You

"There is a perfect brand name." Wrong. Of course your choice matters, but the meaning of a brand's name can evolve like a snowball rolling downhill. Think "Google" or "Microsoft" -- when those names were first introduced, they may have had internal meaning, but the rest of us were clueless. Over time and with massive success, these names have evolved and gained meaning far beyond their origins. - Bernard May, National Positions

10. Follow The Rules When Choosing The Name

Our first priority in naming companies is to do it in conjunction with domain searching and state registration sites. There are myriad myths around choosing brand names, but the worst is the rule that says there should be rules when choosing perfect brand names. The trick (not the rule) is to create a name that delights and sticks to consumer minds and, of course, is available. - Terry Tateossian, Socialfix Media

Quasi-periodic ripples in high latitude electron content, the geomagnetic field, and the solar wind

The ESR 32 m and 42 m peak magnitudes in electron content

Though there is close agreement between the 32 m and 42 m electron content periodicities (Extension using ESR common programme data), the same is not necessarily true for the peak magnitudes, a comparison of which is shown in Fig. 15. A logarithmic scale was used because the magnitudes are biased towards the lower values, about 30% being less than 1.1. Furthermore, subtraction of unity (“ratio - 1” in the axis labels) gives the peak of the fluctuations as a proportion of the background level. (Subtraction of unity simply reduces the magnitude of the ripples without affecting their structure, as verified in Validation of the smoothing procedure.) Though a trend is clearly present, the correlation coefficient (0.48) implies that the peak magnitudes are only weakly related, and that some other process is modulating the amplitude of the ripples without significantly affecting their frequency. However, application of the Fisher z-transform (Table 2) indicates that the probability of this correlation occurring by chance is less than 0.1%, so there is certainly evidence of a relation between the peak magnitudes, the central line of which is given by -

$${R}_{42}^{\ast }=1.24{({R}_{32}^{\ast })}^{1.07}$$

(2)

where \({R}_{42}^{\ast }\) is the magnitude of the 42 m electron content peaks, and \({R}_{32}^{\ast }\) is the magnitude of the 32 m peaks. (The asterisk notation indicates that unity has been subtracted from the peak magnitude of any given parameter).

Figure 15

Comparison of magnitudes for selected pairs of associated ESR 32 m and 42 m peaks (SE = standard error).

GOES13 and GOES15

The GOES13 and 15 peak timings were compared in Geomagnetic Field Observations. It is also instructive to compare the magnitudes of closely-associated pairs of peaks, and this relationship is shown in Fig. 16 for peaks separated by less than 12 minutes. As for the peak magnitudes in electron content (above), a logarithmic scale was used and unity was subtracted from the peak magnitudes, most of which are small in relation to the background (about 98% being less than 1.1). There is good correlation (0.78), and a large number of samples (457), indicating that the amplitude of the ripples in the geomagnetic field tends to be uniform over 4 hours of local time. If \({{\rm{G}}}_{13}^{\ast }\) is the magnitude of the peaks in GOES13 flux density and \({{\rm{G}}}_{15}^{\ast }\) is the magnitude of the peaks in GOES15, the central line of the regression (Table 2) is given by -

$${G}_{15}^{\ast }=1.38{({G}_{13}^{\ast })}^{1.03}$$

(3)

Figure 16

Comparison of magnitudes for selected pairs of associated GOES13 and 15 peaks (SE = standard error).

The gradient of the central regression line is very close to unity (1.03), the slight discrepancy possibly implying some degree of bias between the two spacecraft (though whether or not this is instrumental bias is unclear).

Peak magnitudes within the magnetosphere GOES(13,15) and the geomagnetic activity index Ap

Geomagnetic activity on the days in question ranged from “quiet” (on Dec 11–14, Feb 27, Mar 24 and Sep 6), to “moderate” (on Feb 28, Mar 1–2, Mar 23), to “severe” (on Sep 7–8). Only Sep 7 and 8 were affected by CME activity, and substorms were only prevalent during these days. The GOES peak magnitudes and their corresponding Ap indices are compared in Fig. 17, and there is strong evidence of a statistical relation between the GOES peaks and geomagnetic activity (as might be expected), the correlation coefficient being 0.77 for 914 samples. For a given value of Ap, the peaks in the GOES flux density ratio vary by about a factor of 10. If G* is the peak GOES flux density and Ap is the index of geomagnetic activity, the central line of the regression (Table 2) is given by -

$${G}^{\ast }=0.0008{({A}_{p})}^{1.06}.$$

(4)

Figure 17

Comparison of magnitudes for selected GOES peaks over a range of geomagnetic activity, as indicated by the Ap index (SE = standard error). The samples with Ap > 90 apply only to September 7 and 8.

The exponent being very close to unity (1.06), this approximates to a simple linear relation between G* and Ap.

GOES and the 42 m electron content

Though there is clearly a connection between GOES and electron content peaks in terms of periodicity, there is no evidence of the same being true for peak magnitudes, the correlation between the GOES and 42 m field-aligned electron content peaks being only 0.07.

Peak magnitudes in the solar wind: dynamic pressure and IMF total flux density

The flow speed of the solar wind varied in the range 280–850 km/s during the selected days, giving a travel time from L1 to the Earth’s bowshock in the range 30 to 90 minutes. Assuming a 10% error, this means that the timing of the L1-to-bowshock correction is subject to as much as 9 minutes uncertainty. For the purposes of this study, such an uncertainty precludes any useful comparison of the timing of solar wind measurements with either GOES or the ESR radars. However, there are some clearly defined peaks that are separated by no more than about 10 minutes, and their magnitudes have been compared.

Solar wind dynamic pressure and geomagnetic flux density

The relation between the magnitudes of clearly associated Pdyn and GOES peaks is summarised in Fig. 18 for all 13 days. For Pdyn, 57% of the peak magnitudes are less than 1.1, so, as before, a logarithmic scale was used with unity subtracted from the values. Out of the 251 samples, 243 have a time difference of no more than 10 minutes. Only 8 differ by 10–15 minutes, and these were very clearly defined with no other peaks within 30 minutes. The correlation coefficient (0.71) shows a strong association between the amplitude of the ripples in the dynamic pressure of the solar wind and the corresponding response in the geomagnetic field. If G* is the peak GOES flux density and P* is the peak dynamic pressure of the solar wind, the central line of the regression for all times of day (Table 2) is given by -

$${G}^{\ast }=0.51{({P}^{\ast })}^{1.62}$$

(5)

Figure 18

Comparison of magnitudes of selected pairs of GOES and Pdyn peaks (SE = standard error).

Tests also indicate that there is no local time dependence between the GOES and Pdyn peak magnitudes, there being no significant difference between the peak magnitude correlations on the dayside and the nightside.

IMF flux density and geomagnetic flux density

The relation between the magnitudes of clearly associated Btot and GOES peaks is summarised in Fig. 19, for all 13 days. For Btot, about 67% of the peak magnitudes are less than 1.1, so a logarithmic scale was used with unity subtracted from the values, as before. Out of the 268 samples, only 3 have a time difference in the range 10–15 minutes, and these were very clearly defined with no other peaks within 30 minutes. The correlation coefficient (0.26) shows a very weak association between the amplitude of the ripples in the IMF total flux density and the corresponding response in the geomagnetic field.

Figure 19

Comparison of magnitudes of selected pairs of GOES and Btot peaks (SE = standard error).

Pdyn and the 42 m electron content

As in the case of GOES, there appears to be no association between the amplitude of the ripples in Pdyn and those in electron content, the correlation coefficient being only 0.03.

Period of maximum activity

In the 14 days of observations, geomagnetic activity reached maximum intensity (Kp = 8+, Ap = 236) during the interval 1200–1500 UT on Sep 8. Regarding the magnitude comparisons GOES13-GOES15, GOES1315-Ap, and GOES-Pdyn (Figs. 16–18 respectively), the values are all grouped together at high values (as expected) during this interval. However, the electron content values in the 32 m–42 m comparison (Fig. 15) are more scattered, probably due to F-region disruption by substorms, though there are only 5 points of comparable pairs (with 2 being at low values).

Google to Apple: Safari's privacy feature actually opens iPhone users to tracking

Researchers from Google's Information Security Engineering team have detailed several security issues in the design of Apple's Safari anti-tracking system, Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP). 

ITP is designed to restrict cookies and is Apple's answer to online marketers that track users across websites. However, Google researchers argue in a new paper that ITP actually leaks Safari users' web-browsing habits, "allowing persistent cross-site tracking, and enabling cross-site information leaks, including cross-site search". 

Some of the bugs were addressed by Apple's December security updates in Safari 13.04 and iOS 13.3. But Google's security researchers say the mitigations don't fully resolve the privacy issues. "Such fixes will not address the underlying problem," they write.

SEE: 10 tips for new cybersecurity pros (free PDF)

The Apple WebKit engineer behind ITP, John Wilander, thanked Google for its assistance in December in a blog, noting the online ad giant was "able to explore both the ability to detect when web content is treated differently by tracking prevention and the bad things that are possible with such detection".   

Google researchers Artur Janc, Krzysztof Kotowicz, Lukas Weichselbaum, and Roberto Clapis have now detailed five attacks that exploit ITP's design, which relies on an on-device algorithm to build an ITP list containing details about sites visited. The problem is that sites can use the list to discover information about the websites that Safari users visit.  

"Any site can issue cross-site requests, increasing the number of ITP strikes for an arbitrary domain and forcing it to be added to the user's ITP list," the researchers write. 

"By checking for the side-effects of ITP triggering for a given cross-site HTTP request, a website can determine whether its domain is present on the user's ITP list; it can repeat this process and reveal ITP state for any domain."

Google and Apple are at odds over how best to protect users from cross-site tracking. Apple introduced ITP in Safari for macOS and iOS in 2017, and while Chrome has a larger share on the desktop, Apple's changes have reportedly hurt ad-tech companies and publishers. 

Wilander recently highlighted that Safari, Firefox, Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge, and Brave had all implemented some form of cross-site tracking prevention, yet Google Chrome had not.  

Google's engineering director of Chrome, Justin Schuh, insists Apple has not resolved the ITP bugs Google reported to it and suggests the feature is fatally flawed because it creates even worse security and privacy issues than the ones it was designed to address.

"This is a bigger problem than Safari's ITP introducing far more serious privacy vulnerabilities than the kinds of tracking that it's supposed to mitigate. The cross-site search and related side-channels it exposes are also abusable security vulnerabilities," wrote Schuh.

SEE: Must-have security extensions for Google Chrome

Schuh pointed out parallels with Chrome's XSS Auditor, a decade-old security feature that detects cross-site scripting attacks. Google announced in July that it would ditch the feature in part because it introduced many "cross-site info leaks", and Google found that "fixing all the info leaks has proven difficult". 

"To add some context, Chrome's XSS Auditor was found to introduce exactly the same class of side-channel vulnerabilities. After several back and forths with the team that discovered the issue, we determined that it was inherent to the design and had to remove the code," wrote Schuh.   

Enhanced Oil Recovery Market Expansion To Be Persistent During 2018-2023

Global enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies market should reach $40.8 billion by 2023 from $27.9 billion in 2018 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.9% for the period of 2018-2023.

Report Scope:

The scope of this investigation includes all of the major viable EOR technologies that are currently being implemented in the global oil industry. Separate from hydrofracture and tight sands or tight oil extraction are categorized as Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) of which EOR is a subset), EOR was originally developed as a means to extract additional oil from reservoirs after primary and secondary recovery methods ceased to be productive enough to maintain economic field operation. In some cases, the EOR technologies considered in this report may also be applied immediately following initial well drilling. These applications are common for fields where primary and secondary recovery technologies are incapable of producing adequate oil in any phase of an oil field operation.

Request For Report Sample:https://www.Trendsmarketresearch.Com/report/sample/11820

Installation and operation of EOR technologies can include various products and components such as injection pumps, wellheads, specialized well tubing, chemical feeder systems, air separation units, gas compressors, blowers, steam generators, specialized storage vessels, gas recapture and separation systems, and various other equipment and facilities. Other important products of an EOR technology include oil recovery media such as surfactants, polymers, alkali chemicals, liquid nitrogen and CO2. Although steam and onsite-compressed atmospheric nitrogen are also important oil recovery media, they are not considered EOR technology products within this report as they are supplied at minimal or no direct cost, unlike CO2 or specialized injection chemicals that are supplied to an EOR operation.

The market analysis provided in this report presents region-specific and country-specific market valuation data for each of the EOR technologies considered in this study. These include breakdowns for the following categories:- Steam Flooding.- In-Situ Combustion.- Chemical Flooding.- Hydrocarbon Gas Flooding.- Nitrogen Gas Flooding.- Carbon Dioxide Flooding.

Estimated values in each of these categories are based on manufacturers' total revenues. Projected and forecasted revenue values are in constant US dollars (2017), unadjusted for inflation.

Request for Report Discount : https://www.Trendsmarketresearch.Com/report/discount/11820

Emerging EOR technologies that may become commercially viable within the next five years are summarized but are not included in the market assessment of this report. BCC analyzes each major viable EOR technology, determines its current market status, examines its impact on future markets and presents forecasts of growth over the next five years. BCC analyzes the industry on a worldwide basis in terms of its manufacturing and the deployment of its technologies or products. BCC also examines government roles in support of EOR technologies worldwide, including regulatory support, government requirements and promotional incentives for various EOR technologies as relevant and available. BCC provides a review of the most relevant EOR technologies, discusses recent trends in capacity installation and unit sales and provides industry overviews and market assessments for each EOR technology.

Report Includes:

- An overview of the global market for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies that are implemented to recover crude oil from reservoirs after primary and secondary recovery methods have ceased to be productive enough to continue normal field operations economically.- Analyses of global market trends, with data from 2015 and 2016, and projections of compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) through 2021.- Identification of the various EOR products and components, such as injection pumps, wellheads, specialized well tubing, chemical feeder systems, air separation units, gas compressors, blowers, steam generators, specialized storage vessels, and various other equipment and facilities; other important products include oil recovery media such as surfactants, polymers, alkali chemicals, liquid nitrogen, and CO2.- Discussion of the most recent government, industry, and academic data regarding the amount of oil in place that potentially can be extracted via EOR.- Examination of governments' roles in support of EOR technologies worldwide, including regulatory support, government requirements, and promotional incentives for various EOR technologies as relevant and available.

Report Summary

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been overshadowed by unconventional extraction techniques such as horizontal drilling and hydrofracture, but nonetheless remains a significant toolset in the portfolio of available extraction technologies. These technologies support continued growth in national and regional oil production, even where hydrofracture is not applied, and where aging oil fields grow increasingly depleted.

Global EOR deployment dropped in the wake of low oil prices that ensued in early 2014, resulting in a significant decrease in global oil extraction and production activities. This largely unanticipated jolt meaningfully slowed EOR development in comparison to prior development rates and projections that considered those rates. Nonetheless, EOR technologies in most areas globally continue to grow, and some specific technologies are flourishing. These vary considerably, however, from country to country,where an EOR technology may be highly viable and developing rapidly in one country or region, but stagnant or even declining in another. Variability is driven by differences in formation characteristics as well as regulatory and economic variability, which have in some places coalesced to support strong markets. In other areas, while actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have helped to stabilize oil prices, lower oil prices still represent critical factors, and can substantially dampen select categories of new EOR deployment.

Market sales and industry growth since 2015 underscore several key features to the world market for EOR technologies. First, EOR is no longer being sustained by persistently high oil prices, meaning that EOR providers must increase their efficiency to stay profitable; this has caused troubled roads for more costly efforts such as steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) in their effort to remain viable. Second, while the recent blossoming of unconventional oil production has caused an oil price drop, lower oil prices have in some regions led to the reinstatement of tax exemptions and other incentives, which tend to support EOR development. Third, EOR markets are beginning to gain traction even with major several major oil-producing nations that have historically relied only on primary and secondary extraction. Finally, with respect to concerns over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the advancement of carbon dioxide based EOR is linking GHG emissions reduction to oil production, opening the door for increased deployment of EOR in countries with concerns over their GHG emissions.

The tables and figures below provide a summary of the global market for EOR technologies, broken down by region. North America maintains by far the largest regional market for EOR technologies. Led by steam deployments in Canada and CO2-EOR deployments in the U.S., the region's market struggled under low-cost oil; this primarily causes losses in Canadian oil sands, which influenced markets overall. The North American market will advance from $9.6 billion in 2016 to $13.2 billion in 2021, at acompound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.7%. Asian markets are also large but rely more strongly on chemical flood EOR, rather than CO2, at least for the present and near future. Asia's markets will increase from $4.6 billion to nearly $6.2 billion, for a CAGR of 5.9%. The region as a whole will increase in value from nearly $22.9 billion to $30.4 billion during 2016 to 2021 at a CAGR of 5.9% during that period.

Report Description:https://www.Trendsmarketresearch.Com/report/analysis/BCC/enhanced-oil-recovery-market

Contact Us:One Vincent SquareWestminster, London SW1P 2PNUnited KingdomEmail: sales@trendsmarketresearch.ComWebsite: https://www.Trendsmarketresearch.Com

Company Overviewwe are a UK-based market intelligence company that operates out of its passion to help brands grow, discover, and transform. As a market research company, we take pride in equipping our clients with insights and data that holds the power to truly make a difference to their business. Our mission is singular and well-defined - we want to help our clients envisage their business environment so that they are able to make informed, strategic and therefore successful decisions for themselves.

This release was published on openPR.