Igor review

The naming portfolio at /clients/naming-agency-naming-agencies.php lists roughly 50 names as Igor's work (WHOOP, truTV, Aria, Gogo, Ethos, Getaway, Pursuit, Wynn, Fresco, Neoverse and others), each with its own case page. The grid itself shows only a category label, not the commissioning client, but individual case pages do name the buyer -- the WHOOP page states the client was XOsphere and describes why the exclamation was chosen. Four of these attributions (Gogo Inflight, truTV, Aria Resort and Casino, Cutthroat Kitchen) are independently repeated on the Wikipedia entry for Igor Naming Agency, and the underlying brands are all real, in-market, recognisable names. Held at Strong rather than Excellent for two reasons: no case page carries a date, so a buyer cannot tell which wins belong to the current team versus the 2002-2011 founding era, and no client is quoted confirming the credit on the client's own property.

What this dimension measures: Names the firm created that are verifiably in use by real companies — the strongest evidence this category can offer, because a shipped name is public. Attributed, checkable names for recognisable clients score 4-5. Case studies without the client's confirmation, or a portfolio dominated by decades-old wins, score 2-3: naming credits are notoriously contested and old glory says little about the current team. No attributable names scores 2. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

The process is published as four named stages at /process/naming-agency-naming-agencies.php -- positioning, competitive analysis, name development, trademark screening -- and two of them are documented further. Competitive analysis has a concrete deliverable: a name taxonomy chart plotting rival names by tone and engagement, with 13+ worked examples across airlines, biotech, social networks and SUVs, plus a blank chart clients can use themselves. Name development is organised around four stated name categories (functional/descriptive, invented, experiential, evocative), and the firm publishes a full-length naming guide free. That is well above 'we brainstorm then check'. It is capped at Adequate on the dimension's central test: across the homepage, all six process pages and the about page, there is no described linguistic or cultural screening in any market or language. The only cross-border check mentioned anywhere is trademark database coverage, which is a legal search, not a linguistic one. No candidate count, no round structure and no territory-development method are described either.

What this dimension measures: A published, specific process: how territories are developed, how many candidates are generated, and — critically — linguistic and cultural screening across the markets the client sells in. A described multi-market linguistic check with named steps scores 4-5. A generic 'we brainstorm then check' description scores 2-3. No described method scores 2. Weight specificity: the firms that do this well tend to write about it in detail, so vagueness is informative. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

A screening step is stated and, unusually, corroborated. /process/trademark-screening-names.php says 'All names we present to clients are screened for legal availabilty in U.S. and global trademark databases, and put through a Google due diligence search to catch common law usage' -- i.e. pre-screening happens before presentation, not after. A Clutch review from a Principal Product Manager at Playful Software (Dec 9, 2022) independently describes the same thing in practice: 'Over 4 meetings, they presented 45 names, each name was prescreened (US trademark and Google due diligence).' That corroboration lifts it well clear of the silence-scores-2 floor. It stops short of the top band because the published page describes no knockout methodology, no class strategy, and no handoff to trademark counsel -- and, most importantly, never states the boundary that screening is not legal clearance. The phrase 'screened for legal availabilty' sits close to implying clearance; the firm does not claim to substitute for counsel, so this is a gap rather than a red flag, but the honest-boundary statement the top band requires is absent.

What this dimension measures: What the firm does before candidates reach the client: knockout searches, class strategy, and how it hands off to trademark counsel. A stated pre-screening step with honest boundaries — screening is not legal clearance, and firms that say so score better than firms that imply it is — scores 4-5. Silence on trademark process scores 2, because presenting unscreened names wastes the one thing this purchase buys. Any implication that the firm's screening substitutes for counsel is a red flag, scored 1-2. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Igor publishes no fee, range or starting point for its own work. The homepage does carry a long editorial essay containing dollar figures -- $65,000 per name at A Hundred Monkeys, roughly $75,000 at Enterprise IG, over $1M for Landor's Agilent program -- but every one of those is a competitor's or industry figure quoted as commentary, not Igor's price. A buyer reading it could easily mistake industry colour for a rate card. The contact page (/contact-naming-agency.php) lists only address, phone and email: no budget range, no project minimum. The engagement structure is stated (the four phases), which is what keeps this off the floor, but nothing states what a naming engagement excludes -- identity, brand strategy, or the actual trademark filing. The only checkable figure a buyer can reach is third-party: Clutch lists Igor's minimum project size at $10,000+, with $10,000-$49,000 the most common range across 43 of the reviewed projects.

What this dimension measures: Naming fees are famously opaque. Published fees, ranges or stated starting points score 4-5. A stated engagement structure without numbers scores 2-3. Nothing at all scores 1-2. Score scope honesty alongside: a firm that states what a naming engagement excludes (identity, strategy, legal filing) is more useful than one implying a full rebrand. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Tanj scores Strong on the same dimension.

Nothing on Igor's own site states how many candidate names a client receives, how many rounds are included, what accompanies each name, or what happens if every shortlisted candidate dies in legal review. The name development and process pages describe how names are conceived, not what is handed over. The one concrete data point is a single client's account on Clutch -- 45 pre-screened names across 4 meetings -- which suggests the real engagement is substantial and well structured, but one review is not a published deliverable spec, and a buyer cannot know before contracting whether that is typical. The clearance-failure contingency, which in this category is the question that decides whether a project can fail expensively, is not addressed anywhere that could be read.

What this dimension measures: What the client actually receives: how many candidate names per round, how many rounds, what accompanies them (rationale, screening results, territory map), and what happens if every candidate dies in legal. A stated structure with a stated contingency for clearance failure scores 4-5. Undefined deliverables score 2 — in a category where the visible output is a shortlist, not knowing its size before contracting is buying blind. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Stronger here: Tanj scores Strong on the same dimension.

No engagement timeline is published on any page read -- not on the process pages, the naming guide landing page, the about page or the contact page. Neither a kickoff-to-final-candidates duration nor a per-phase schedule appears. The Clutch review describing four presentation meetings implies a multi-week engagement, but no duration is stated by the firm or by the reviewer. Measured absence, on six pages where it would naturally sit.

What this dimension measures: Stated engagement timelines from kickoff to final candidates. Published, realistic timelines score 4-5 — naming projects run weeks, not days, and honesty beats speed. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: River + Wolf scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Read first-hand on Clutch, which requires reviewer verification: a 5.0 rating across 46 reviews, with individual entries carrying reviewer role, company and date, and describing project specifics concrete enough to cross-check against Igor's own process claims (the 45-names-over-4-meetings account being the clearest example). For a boutique naming firm running a small number of projects a year, 46 verified client reviews is a substantial base rather than a thin one. Separately, the press page lists 120+ mentions in Fortune, the New York Times, Bloomberg, WSJ and NPR, and the Fortune piece from Oct 29, 2023 checks out as a genuine reproduced article -- but those quote Steve Manning as a naming expert and credit Igor with no client work, so they are visibility, not client references, and did not move this score.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or checkable client references. A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none scores 2. Low weight deliberately: boutique naming firms run on referral and small annual project counts, so a thin review footprint is normal and the in-market names matter more. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.