How to Navigate Naming Decisions When Expanding Your Services

When you’re launching something new, whether a service, product, or business unit, one of the biggest questions you’ll face is: Do we keep the name, change the name, or build a brand-new one?

That was the exact conversation I had with a client recently, and I believe it’s a conversation worth unpacking, since they’re not the only ones contemplating this weighty decision.

While the answer isn’t one-size-fits-all, the framework we used might help you find clarity in your next big move.

One important caveat: This article breaks down this decision primarily from a marketing and positioning perspective. But, there are a whole host of other factors that should also be considered, such as: risk and legal, team skills and capabilities, and process and profitability (just to name a few).

So, with that off my chest, let’s continue.

The Challenge

Whether it’s a new product, service, or even a whole business unit, it’s hard to know the next right move for your company or organization.

How do I know? I went through this very exercise for my own work last year when launching The Cause Company, in addition to Evan Cox Consulting, and I also sought outside counsel to ensure I wasn’t overlooking any major blind spots.

The Scenario

With a growing business and many opportunities on the table, this client has an established brand that is well-known in one specific line of work. However, they also plan to expand their service offerings to provide a more comprehensive solution for their clients.

However, like many decisions we face as leaders, we unpacked three options, all with a series of benefits and drawbacks.

So, let’s break them down here, and compare the pros and cons with a fictitious example in a roofing company we’ll call (for this exercise) “The Amazing Roofing Company.”

Option 1: Same Name

Stay the Course With Their Name, But Redefine It

The Approach: With a trusted brand, they could keep their existing name and integrate new services into a niche that aligns with their existing services. In essence, it’s staying the course, but redefining how consumers think about the service offering.

The Benefits:

• No name change means building trust with an audience who knows and likes what their existing name is and what it represents.
• Less money spent on rebranding and becoming known by a new name.

The Drawbacks:

• Their existing name speaks to a niche service line and is limiting in the eyes of some customers and clients.
• It’s challenging to establish a new service when the existing name doesn’t make the broader service offering immediately apparent.

For example, this would be equivalent to “The Amazing Roofing Company” retaining their existing name but adding siding and doors to their suite of services.

The new services aren’t so far outside the lines that you can’t make a logical connection, but to make this a strong position in the market, it’s imperative to create messaging and campaigns that outline how being a “roofing company” means also addressing these other solutions, too.

Real-World Example: Mailchimp

While originally an email marketing tool, Mailchimp expanded into an all-in-one marketing platform (including landing pages, automation, and CRM) all under the same name. They stayed the course and redefined their position as a full marketing platform.

In 2021, Intuit acquired Mailchimp for $12B. The acquisition was largely due to Mailchimp’s ability to grow beyond email without abandoning its brand equity. Strong brands can evolve their meaning, but this requires strategic messaging and ongoing customer education.

As my good friend Matt Banker likes to remind me, “different is better than better”, and a new spin on an existing service that offers more value might just do the trick.

Option 2: New Names

Launch Additional Brands For Each New Service

The Approach: With one service line firmly in market and two more coming online soon, it’s hard to ignore the approach that simply turns each service into a separate (but connected) brand. While this option was admittedly the least enticing for this client, it still deserves consideration.

The Benefits:

• Each sub-brand will have a specific name tied directly to the service line, which is a logical connection for consumers.
• This simplifies positioning (and even SEO) since each site can focus entirely on the problems and language of a single service line.

The Drawbacks:

• Launching two additional brands effectively triples their marketing cost and time on task.
• Managing three separate brands can spread many leaders beyond their capacity.

Okay, so “The Amazing Roofing Company” opts to also launch “The Amazing Siding Company” and “The Amazing Doors Company” in this scenario.

Each website and campaign speaks intricately to the problems and solutions consumers have with their doors, siding, and roofs. Great, right? But also easy to spiral out of control if the business isn’t set up to oversee it.

Real-World Example: Procter & Gamble (P&G)

P&G owns dozens of separate brands: Tide, Pampers, Gillette, Olay, etc. Each brand speaks to a different customer need and market. They use a “House of Brands” strategy, with individual branding to reduce confusion and maximize audience relevance.

According to a Nielsen study, 77% of consumers make purchase decisions based on brand name recognition. Making unique names for each product line is potentially powerful, provided you have the business model to support it.

Option 3: Rename

Rebrand and Go Up Market

The Approach: Become the all-encompassing solution for their audience by choosing a new name that brings the existing service and two new service lines under one umbrella.

The Benefits:

• A new name that neatly accounts for all the things they offer is a stronger long-term position in the market.

The Drawbacks:

• Selecting a new name means re-educating the market and transferring trust with their audience.
• A rebrand takes both capital and capacity to pull off.

With option 3, “The Amazing Roofing Company” rebrands as “The Amazing Exteriors Company,” so roofing, siding, and doors all fall under one seamless umbrella. It’s a long-term play that introduces a broader name into the market.

Real-World Example: Meta

Facebook renamed its parent company to Meta in 2021 to encompass its broader ambition beyond social media (into AR/VR and the metaverse). The Facebook platform still exists, but Meta now houses all initiatives (Instagram, WhatsApp, Quest, etc.).

Meta invested $10B+ in rebrand and R&D for the shift, which reflects a major brand evolution strategy.

Choosing the Right Path for Your Brand

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution if you’re considering a name change, rebranding, or product launch. However, these are three approaches worth considering, so you can visualize the trade-offs that come with each.