Tanj review

The /work/ index lists 30+ attributed case studies and claims 80+ clients, with named brands that demonstrably exist in market: Ally, Bravia (Sony), Wii (Nintendo), Veem, Runa, Rainforest, Concourse, HighFi, Buoy Health, Tend, Climb Hire, Dashlane Omnix, Trovo, Returnal. Two things stop this from reaching Excellent. First, the marquee credits are qualified by Tanj itself: the Wii project page says only 'Members of our team created it,' which is a credit earned by individuals, in some cases at prior employers, not a firm engagement - honest, but it means the two most recognisable names on the site are not Tanj-the-firm's work. Second, the case studies carry no client confirmation of the naming credit specifically; the one named client quote read first-hand (Adam Lathram, Co-Founder, Buoy Health) endorses messaging and copy guidelines, not the name. What does corroborate current-era work is independent: 67 verified Clutch reviews spanning 2011 to Feb 2026, several naming the client outright (Andigo Credit Union, Waggener Edstrom, MatchBuilt, New Haircut, Variate Labs, TradingTable, Studio Sanderson, Few & Far, Chestnut, Buckminster Inc.), all logged under a Branding/Naming service line. So the portfolio is not decades-old glory alone - there is third-party evidence of a working naming practice in the present.

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 /about/ page publishes a four-phase method with quantities attached, which is more than most firms in this category do: Naming Strategy (research and workshops), Name Generation ('1,500+ strategic name ideas that explore every angle of your brief'), Trademark and Screening ('In parallel, we vet names for trademark and linguistic viability, eliminating obvious conflicts early'), and Candidate Presentation ('We narrow the field to 20-25 recommended candidates, each presented with story, rationale, and visual context'). It also states 'global trademark screening, linguistic vetting and cultural checks' and 'extensive searches during development for US and/or Global conflicts.' A separate published article on testing a product name argues for 'native-speaker checks in key languages, not automated translation tools,' which is the correct instinct. Capped at Strong rather than Excellent because the multi-market check is asserted rather than specified: no named market set, no stated number of languages or reviewers, and the native-speaker line is framed as recommended practice rather than as a fixed step in a Tanj engagement. A buyer selling into, say, Brazil and Japan cannot tell from the site whether those two markets get checked by default or cost extra.

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.

This is the firm's strongest published area and it is stated with the honesty the category rewards. Screening runs in parallel with generation rather than as an afterthought ('we vet names for trademark and linguistic viability, eliminating obvious conflicts early'), which is what stops unscreened candidates reaching the client. The boundary is drawn explicitly and in the firm's own words: preliminary screening is 'a first pass to filter out obvious conflicts,' while 'Final legal clearance requires trademark counsel and is typically handled separately.' Nothing read implies the firm's screening substitutes for counsel. The /about/ team page names an external trademark attorney by name and firm (Perry Gattegno, Litwin Kach) - an on-site checkable fact, not a vague 'we work with legal partners.' Six published articles cover trademark screening, legal strength of marks, and legal FAQs. The claim remains vendor-stated: no client and no counsel confirmed the depth of a knockout search, and no class strategy detail is published.

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

A stated starting point exists on the /about/ page: 'Projects start at ~$25k. Scope and complexity drive the final number.' That is corroborated independently on the Clutch profile, which lists a $25,000+ minimum project size and a $200-$300 hourly rate - a figure Clutch collects rather than the agency publishing it unilaterally. The contact form offers budget bands ($25,000 & under / $25,000-$50,000 / $50,000-$100,000 / $100,000+), which reveals the working range even though it is a qualification field rather than a price list. Verified Clutch reviews show actual spends from roughly $10K to $199K, mostly $30K-$70K. Scope honesty is present: the site states that final legal clearance sits with trademark counsel and is handled separately. Held at Strong because the firm's tiered price ranges ($15-30K / $35-75K / $80-150K+) appear only inside a search-optimised cost article about the naming market generally, which is marketing content rather than a published rate card for Tanj's own work; no service page carries a fee structure.

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

The shortlist size and its contents are stated on /about/: '20-25 recommended candidates, each presented with story, rationale, and visual context.' The clearance-failure contingency - the thing most naming firms leave silent - is addressed in the published process article: 'if none of the shortlist candidates survive full legal clearance, the agency goes back into development with updated direction,' with the note that good agencies structure engagements to include this. Two gaps keep it off Excellent. The number of rounds is never stated anywhere read. And the figures disagree across surfaces: /about/ says 20-25 candidates, while the process article describes a shortlist of '8-12 options' or 'typically ten to twenty names.' A buyer reading both cannot tell what lands in their inbox. Nor is it stated in writing whether the redevelopment after a total clearance failure is included in the fee or billed.

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

Published and realistic rather than fast. The process article states 'A standard engagement runs 6-10 weeks from kickoff to final recommendation,' and a dedicated timeline article breaks it down by phase: discovery and strategy 1-2 weeks, name development 1-2 weeks, client review and refinement 1-2 weeks, deep legal clearance 1-3 weeks, decision and final alignment a few days to a week - totalling four to six weeks for startups and eight to twelve for established companies. These are honest numbers for the category, and the article is candid that stakeholder drag, not the agency, is usually what extends a project. Two caveats: the schedule lives on the blog rather than on any service or contact page a buyer would reach first, and the timeline article mixes general industry framing with Tanj-specific asides, so it reads partly as market education. Verified Clutch reviews report actual durations from three to four weeks up to three to six months, which is consistent with the published range.

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

Read first-hand on Clutch, which requires reviewer verification: 5.0 out of 5 across 67 verified reviews. This is a large base for a boutique naming firm, where the rubric expects a thin footprint to be normal. The reviews carry the details that make them checkable - reviewer role, engagement dates, service line and budget - and span 2011 to February 2026, so the base is current rather than a historical residue. Named reviewing organisations include Andigo Credit Union, Waggener Edstrom, MatchBuilt, New Haircut, Variate Labs, TradingTable, Studio Sanderson, Few & Far, Chestnut and Buckminster Inc.; larger clients appear anonymised by sector. The recurring criticism read in the reviews is substantive rather than decorative - some clients hit trademark and domain availability problems with proposed names - which is the friction this category actually produces and its presence suggests the base is not curated.

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.