The Naming Group review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 23% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 10 · Adequate 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

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.

Scores high — Attributed, checkable names for recognisable clients score 4-5.

Scores low — 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.

What we found — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Upright's own site footer reads 'Fund That Flip, Inc dba Upright', confirming the rename claimed in the firm's Upright case study.” upright.us ↗

On the record — “BowFlex sells a VeloCore Bike (22-inch touchscreen, lean mode) today, confirming that the name claimed in the firm's Nautilus/Bowflex case study is in market.” bowflex.com ↗

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 19% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 7. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

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. Weight specificity: the firms that do this well tend to write about it in detail, so vagueness is informative.

Scores high — A described multi-market linguistic check with named steps scores 4-5.

Scores low — A generic 'we brainstorm then check' description scores 2-3. No described method scores 2.

What we found — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “A published four-phase process (Discovery, Planning, Creation, Decisioning) with four named evaluative filters inside Creation: TM screening, linguistic analysis by native-speaking linguists, contextual evaluation, and digital viability assessment.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

On the record — “Trademark screening and 'trademark attorney liaising' are listed supporting services, and cultural and linguistic analysis and digital screening are named alongside them.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 10 · Adequate 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

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.

Scores high — 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.

Scores low — 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.

What we found — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Trademark screening and 'trademark attorney liaising' are listed supporting services, and cultural and linguistic analysis and digital screening are named alongside them.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

On the record — “A six-person team is named publicly, including a Trademark Counsel (Trevor Caudle) and a Naming Lead, alongside the Founder & Principal.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 9 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Naming fees are famously opaque. 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.

Scores high — Published fees, ranges or stated starting points score 4-5.

Scores low — A stated engagement structure without numbers scores 2-3. Nothing at all scores 1-2.

What we found — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The contact page offers only three email addresses (hello@, allies@, jobs@) with no intake form, no budget field, no pricing and no stated engagement structure.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

On the record — “Clutch profile shows an overall 5.0 rating, a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,000 across 12 branding reviews, 2-9 employees, founded 2009, and an 85% naming service mix.” clutch.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Tanj scores Strong on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 9 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

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.

Scores high — A stated structure with a stated contingency for clearance failure scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined deliverables score 2 — in a category where the visible output is a shortlist, not knowing its size before contracting is buying blind.

What we found — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Case studies read for HP, Nautilus/Bowflex and Destinus each state no candidate count, no number of rounds, no timeline and carry no client quote.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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

Stronger here: Tanj scores Strong on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 5 · Adequate 4 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Stated engagement timelines from kickoff to final candidates.

Scores high — Published, realistic timelines score 4-5 — naming projects run weeks, not days, and honesty beats speed.

Scores low — Undisclosed scheduling scores 2.

What we found — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Case studies read for HP, Nautilus/Bowflex and Destinus each state no candidate count, no number of rounds, no timeline and carry no client quote.” thenaminggroup.com ↗

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

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

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 1 · Adequate 6 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or checkable client references. 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.

Scores low — A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none scores 2.

What we found — 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.

On the record — “Clutch profile shows an overall 5.0 rating, a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,000 across 12 branding reviews, 2-9 employees, founded 2009, and an 85% naming service mix.” clutch.co ↗

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