Give It a Name

In the Rework episode, Jason Fried and David Heinemeier-Hansen reveal that a product’s name often arrives before the idea fully forms, acting as a creative catalyst. The story of Fizzy—originally Splat, then briefly Boxcar—illustrates how visual metaphors (bug splats, carbonated bubbles, colorful train cars) guide naming, while also serving as an anchor that keeps teams aligned during development. This early‑stage naming ritual signals whether a concept is viable, turning abstract ideas into rallying banners that motivate teams and shape user perception.

The hosts stress that phonetics can outweigh literal relevance. They prefer names that sound fun and pleasant, such as Fizzy, over strictly descriptive terms. Domain availability matters, but they argue it shouldn’t dominate the decision; Basecamp launched without Basecamp.com and later secured the coveted domain. Legal friction also surfaces—David’s experience with the name MERSK (confusing Maersk) and the Haystack trademark dispute show that naming risks exist but are often manageable. Their pragmatic approach balances brand cohesion with flexibility, accepting occasional mismatches when the name feels right.

Overall, the conversation underscores a strategic naming framework for businesses: start with a resonant word, prioritize memorable sound, verify domain feasibility, and assess trademark risk without letting any single factor dominate. Consistent, evocative names like Basecamp, Campfire, Backpack, and Highrise create a harmonious brand symphony, while outliers like Fizzy demonstrate that a playful name can still succeed. For product leaders, the takeaway is clear—invest in naming as a foundational branding exercise, but remain open to evolution, ensuring the name supports both internal morale and external market positioning.