The Naming Group review

The /work/ index carries a large attributed portfolio with the client named, not anonymized: HP (HP Amplify, HP+, HP Workpath, ZCentral, ZBook Firefly/Power/Studio/Create/Fury, OMEN Gaming Hub, HP TerraJet, HP Envy Inspire), Nautilus/Bowflex (VeloCore), BRP/Lynx (Shredder, Stealth), Fund That Flip (Upright), New Belgium, Greenhouse, Pipcorn, Destinus, Incredo, Unfurl, Codemason, The Lasso. I confirmed two of these names exist in market first-hand and independently: the BowFlex VeloCore Bike is a current product on bowflex.com, and upright.us footers read 'Fund That Flip, Inc dba Upright', matching the claimed rename. Capped below Excellent because no case study I read (HP, Nautilus, Destinus) carries a client quote or client-side confirmation of the naming credit, and naming credits are routinely contested; some marquee logos in the index (Chevrolet Sonic, Reebok, Sony, Nestle) date to the founder's earlier career rather than demonstrably recent work by the current six-person team.

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.

A dedicated process page (/the-name-development-process/) publishes a four-phase method with named steps: Discovery (research, interviews, immersion in existing brand research), Planning (align decision makers on naming priorities and decisioning criteria), Creation (a custom-selected namer team, candidates run through four named filters), Decisioning (criteria used as 'the sole basis' for evaluating candidates). The Creation filters are specified: TM Screening, Linguistic Analysis, Contextual Evaluation (nicknames, mispronunciations, abbreviations) and Digital Viability Assessment (search, social, URL). Multi-market linguistic screening is explicit and staffed: 'native-speaking linguists' screen all candidates 'to control for any negative associations, and ensure linguistic viability' in the markets a name will live in. Held at Strong rather than Excellent because the page never states how naming territories are constructed or how many candidates each phase generates.

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.

Trademark work is a stated pre-screening step, not silence: the process page says candidates are 'pre-screened for domestic and/or international TM availability', and the services page lists 'trademark screening' and 'trademark attorney liaising' as supporting services. The /about/ page names Trevor Caudle as Trademark Counsel on a six-person team. No implication that the firm's screening replaces counsel -- the explicit attorney-liaison line points the other way, so the rubric's 1-2 red-flag band does not apply. Short of Excellent because the firm never states the honest boundary that a knockout screen is not legal clearance, and one line overstates in the other direction: pre-screening is said to deliver 'confidence that each name is ownable', which a buyer could read as a clearance opinion. No class strategy is described.

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.

Measured absence, not a retrieval failure: I read the homepage, /our-services/, /philosophy/, /the-name-development-process/, /about/, /work/ and /get-in-touch/ and found no fee, no range, no starting point and no minimum engagement size. /get-in-touch/ is three email addresses (hello@, allies@, jobs@) with no intake form, no budget field and no stated engagement structure. Scope honesty is also thin -- the services page lists five service families but never states what a naming engagement excludes (identity design, legal filing, brand strategy). The only cost signal anywhere is third-party: The Naming Group's Clutch profile reports a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,000 across 12 branding reviews, with some engagements in the $50,000-$199,999 and $200,000-$999,999 bands. That is review-derived, not published by the firm, so a buyer approaching the site cold still cannot size a project before contacting them.

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.

The four-phase process page says what candidates are put through but never what the client receives. No page states how many candidate names are presented, how many rounds are included, whether screening results and a territory map accompany the shortlist, or what happens if every finalist dies in trademark review -- the contingency the rubric weights most in this dimension. The three case studies I read (HP, Nautilus/Bowflex, Destinus) each explicitly lack candidate counts, round counts and deliverable lists. A buyer cannot know the size of the shortlist before signing.

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

Stronger here: Tanj scores Strong on the same dimension.

No timeline is published anywhere I read. The four phases are described in sequence with no duration attached to any of them, and no page states a typical kickoff-to-final-candidates window. The HP case study describes a 'multi-year' relationship but gives no per-project schedule; the Nautilus and Destinus case studies state no timeline at all.

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: the profile at clutch.co/profile/naming-group shows an overall 5.0 out of 5 with 25 verified reviews (Clutch's own search-listing title for the profile shows 19, so the count is somewhere in the high teens to mid-twenties; the 5.0 rating is consistent across both reads). Profile metadata lists 2-9 employees, founded 2009, Los Angeles HQ, and a service mix of 85% naming / 15% brand strategy, which is consistent with the naming-first positioning on their own site. For a boutique naming consultancy running small annual project counts, this is a substantial independent base.

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.