KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Brand Naming

Wild Geese Studio review

STRONG FIT for Brand Naming

Shortlist-ready for Brand Naming, with the caveats below.

A one-principal naming studio with a large recent portfolio -- Docusign IAM, Frida Mom, SeatGeek Unify -- that publishes exact fees for its training products and explicitly sends its shortlist to the client's own counsel, but publishes no naming-project fee, candidate count or round structure.

Pricing: several published tiers Published by the agency
Practice-development pricing is published with stated starting points: Supercharge SOPs from $20,000 (one workshop), Practice Intensives from $40,000 (three-day offsite plus three months support), Naming Practice Buildout from $90,000 (three-month program). This page sells naming-capability building to other agencies, not client naming projects. source ↗

Score 3.75/5Confidence: lowLast evaluated 2026-08-26Website

How it scored

Every dimension is scored against this discipline’s published rubric. Open one to see the claim it was scored on, what the rubric measures there and how much it weighs, and where the evidence came from.

Named work in marketStrong

The /work page attributes a large, recent, named portfolio: the Docusign Intelligent Agreement Management naming system and Docusign Navigator, Illumina portfolio architecture including Illumina Connected Analytics, Frida brand architecture with Frida Mom and Frida Fertility, SeatGeek Unify and SeatGeek Rally, WNBA Court Origins, three Sephora Collection product names, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Sey Coffee, First Light Books, Mienne, Better Weather, Richardson Sales Performance, and a Payoneer culture-principles project. I confirmed three of these names first-hand on the clients' own domains: 'Intelligent Agreement Management' and IAM are live platform naming on docusign.com/products; Frida Mom is a live sub-brand line on frida.com; Illumina Connected Analytics existed and is now renamed, with illumina.com stating 'Formerly Illumina Connected Analytics, BioInsight Platform Core...'. Docusign Navigator does not appear on the current Docusign products page. So the work demonstrably shipped and is not decades-old, but two flagship credits have already been superseded by later renames, and the studio's authorship of any of these names rests on its own claim plus its own published testimonials rather than on client confirmation I could read independently. Capped at Strong for that reason.

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.

Methodology and linguistic screeningStrong

Prescreening types are enumerated by name on /services: full-service name development includes 'trademark, linguistic, common-law, and cultural prescreening.' Linguistic evaluation is also sold as a standalone service ('Make sure your name says the right thing--or at least confirm it isn't saying anything really wrong'), and the multi-market mechanism is named and time-bounded: they 'can tap into the We Are Naming global network to understand many potential linguistic issues, typically within a day (and sometimes faster).' The firm also publishes an unusually deep public library on this subject -- Truth in Naming volumes 0 through 7 plus a special AI volume, three Truth in Global Naming volumes, and five Truth in Trademarks volumes, including 'Volume 5: How brand names work in China.' Against that, the client-facing process itself is not published step by step: there is no stated territory development approach, no candidate volume, and no phase sequence on any public page. The /method page reads as a naming methodology page but is in fact a training product for other agencies, not a description of client engagements. I did not independently confirm the We Are Naming network.

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 screening rigorStrong

A pre-screening step is stated: they run 'our own trademark searches, using software that helps us understand what's really going on when we say there's a trademark conflict,' and common-law prescreening is named separately on /services. Critically, the boundary is drawn explicitly and in the client's favour rather than blurred: /workingtogether states the working shortlist is 'the list that you'll take to your legal counsel for final legal clearance,' and offers as a separate service joining 'conversations with their legal counsel as the name undergoes deeper clearance searches.' Nothing on the site implies their screening substitutes for counsel. Five published Truth in Trademarks volumes, including 'Top Ten Trademark Myths' and 'Conflict Search Party,' sit behind download forms; I did not read the PDFs. Held at Strong rather than Excellent because class strategy is nowhere described -- a buyer cannot tell which classes get searched or how filing classes are chosen.

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.

Scope and pricing transparencyStrong

Real published numbers, which is rare in this category. /method publishes three tiers with stated starting points: Supercharge SOPs from $20,000 (one workshop), Practice Intensives from $40,000 (three-day offsite plus three months support), Naming Practice Buildout from $90,000 (three-month program). /naming-practice-program is more granular still: remote single-session workshop $6,000 base for up to 8 participants plus $400 per additional participant; remote full program $25,000 plus $1,200 each; in-person single session $8,500 plus $500 each; in-person full program $30,000 plus $1,500 each. Scope honesty is also good -- naming and strategic brand language are separate service lines, legal filing is explicitly the client's counsel's job, and second-round development, legal-counsel support and board presentations are named as things clients additionally hire them for. The gap is the one that matters most to a naming buyer: no fee, range or starting point is published anywhere for full-service name development itself, so the flagship purchase is still priced only by email.

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

Deliverables and rounds clarityAdequate

The terminal deliverable is stated: most projects conclude with 'an emailed summary of our working shortlist, which is a list of the most-favored names discussed during the naming presentation,' and that shortlist is what goes to legal counsel. Engagement rhythm is stated in terms of milestones with Calendly links per milestone. But the three things this dimension asks for are all missing: no stated number of candidate names presented per round, no stated number of rounds included in a base engagement, and no stated list of what accompanies the names (rationale, screening results, territory map). On clearance failure there is a partial answer rather than a contingency -- 'many clients end up requesting a second round of name development,' which is described as an additional purchase, not as protection included in the original scope. A buyer signing this contract still does not know how many names they get.

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.

Turnaround and schedulingAdequate

Scheduling mechanics are disclosed more concretely than most firms bother with: /workingtogether states kickoffs happen on Mondays, presentations and workshops on Thursdays, Fridays are reserved for internal work, and they will meet early or after hours across timezones. Linguistic turnaround is quantified at 'typically within a day (and sometimes faster).' Training products carry real durations -- 2.5-hour sessions, a 2.5-day intensive, a 5-day sprint, one workshop per week over 5 weeks, and three-month programs. What is not published is the number this dimension actually asks for: the elapsed time from kickoff to final candidates on a naming engagement. The site says only that 'even when we're sprinting, we never cut corners on discovery, strategy, and consensus-building,' which signals honesty about pace without committing to a schedule.

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

References and review baseAdequate

No independent review base was located or read. A web search surfaced no Clutch, G2 or Google profile for this studio; the nearest Clutch result, Wild Geese Media, is a different company. What exists instead is a set of named, titled, client-side references published on /work: Carla Weiss (VP Brand & Creative, Docusign), Erica Chan (SVP Global Marketing, Payoneer), Scott Barrows (Creative Strategy and Copy Lead, SeatGeek), Daryl Weber (Head of Brand and Content, MSCI), Erynn Hughes (Creative Strategy Lead, WNBA), Markus Hutchins (Head of Global Brand Strategy, Ford) and Kyle Andrew (Chief Brand Officer). Those are checkable people at real companies, but the quotes are vendor-published and I verified none of them. The founder's stated background -- director of verbal identity at Interbrand leading the naming practice, then seven years co-founding Doublebit Narrative -- is consistent across the site and a public LinkedIn profile. Scored as a handful of checkable references rather than a verified 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: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Verdict

Wild Geese Studio is squarely in category: naming is not a line item under a branding menu, it is the entire business, organised into investigation, validation, development and capacity-building services with a separate strategic brand language line. Every project is led by the founder, who was director of verbal identity at Interbrand running the naming practice before co-founding Doublebit Narrative for seven years, with a named second namer and project teams assembled from an outside network of researchers, linguists, comedy writers and copywriters. It is a principal-led boutique, and the site does not pretend otherwise.

The portfolio is the strongest thing here and it is recent rather than legacy. The work page attributes the Docusign Intelligent Agreement Management naming system, Illumina's portfolio architecture, Frida's brand architecture including Frida Mom and Frida Fertility, SeatGeek Unify and Rally, WNBA Court Origins and three Sephora Collection product names. I checked three of these on the clients' own sites rather than taking the claim: Docusign IAM is live platform naming, Frida Mom is a live product line, and Illumina confirms Connected Analytics existed under that name before being renamed BioInsight Platform Core.

Two caveats a buyer should hold. First, naming credits are contested by nature, and nothing I could read outside this studio's own site confirms that this studio authored these names -- the seven named client executives quoted are checkable people, but the quotes are vendor-published. Second, Docusign Navigator no longer appears on Docusign's products page and Illumina Connected Analytics has been renamed, which is a normal fate for portfolio names but does mean the shopfront is partly showing names their owners have since moved on from.

On the screening that actually keeps a name alive, this firm does better than the category norm in one specific and important way: it draws the line between screening and clearance instead of blurring it. Prescreening is enumerated as trademark, linguistic, common-law and cultural; they describe running their own trademark searches with dedicated software; and then the working-together page says plainly that the shortlist is the list you take to your legal counsel for final legal clearance, with their participation in deeper clearance conversations sold as a separate service. Nothing on the site implies their search substitutes for a lawyer.

Linguistic screening is named as a mechanism with a stated turnaround -- an external global namer network, results typically within a day -- and the firm publishes fifteen-plus free guides across Truth in Naming, Truth in Global Naming and Truth in Trademarks, including one specifically on how brand names work in China. That is a firm that writes about its subject in detail. What it does not publish is class strategy, or how many territories and candidates a real engagement generates.

The commercial disclosure is genuinely split, and a buyer should understand which half applies to them. Anyone buying training gets numbers most agencies never post: three practice-development tiers starting at $20,000, $40,000 and $90,000, and workshop pricing itemised down to $400 per additional participant. Anyone buying an actual name gets none of that -- no fee range, no candidate count per round, no stated number of rounds, no list of what accompanies the shortlist, and no schedule from kickoff to final candidates.

There is also a navigational trap worth flagging: the page called Method is a training product sold to other agencies, not a description of what happens on a client naming project. The likeliest reading is a small studio whose productised, self-serve lines are fully priced while its bespoke work is scoped conversation by conversation, which is ordinary for a principal-led boutique. It is not a reason to avoid them, but it does mean a prospective client is negotiating scope from zero, and should pin down shortlist size, round count and what happens if the whole shortlist dies in legal before signing.

What you can do next

Koolav can make the introduction and handle the back-and-forth, or you can go straight to the agency.

Visit their website

This agency has not published a paid trial. What a paid trial is.

What we verified

Each claim below was checked against a named source, last on 2026-08-26. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.

No independent reviews found

No independent review base was located or read first-hand. A web search returned no Clutch, G2 or Google Business profile for Wild Geese Studio; the closest Clutch result, Wild Geese Media, is an unrelated YouTube marketing company. The only client sentiment available is seven testimonials published on the studio's own work page, attributed to named executives with titles at Docusign, Payoneer, SeatGeek, MSCI, WNBA and Ford. No rating or count is cited here because none was readable. A thin review footprint is normal for a boutique naming firm running on referral.

Not finding one is not a mark against the agency and does not move the score. It does mean there is no third-party record to set against ours — so this verdict rests on the rubric and the sources above, and nothing else.

What we could not verify

Sources

Others we evaluated in Brand Naming

Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.

See all 18 Brand Naming agencies we evaluated →

Think this is wrong?

If anything on this page is wrong or out of date, send us the correction and we will re-read the site.

Evidence moves a verdict. Money never does — no agency pays us for a listing, a placement, or a re-review. Whatever we conclude we publish, including that the verdict stands.