Wild Geese Studio 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 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 So the work demonstrably shipped and is not decades-old, but two flagship credits have already been superseded by later renames, and the studio's authorship of any of these names rests on its own claim plus its own published testimonials rather than on client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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The attributed portfolio includes Docusign Intelligent Agreement Management and Docusign Navigator, Illumina portfolio architecture and Illumina Connected Analytics, Frida Mom and Frida Fertility, SeatGeek Unify and SeatGeek Rally, WNBA Court Origins, three Sephora Collection names, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Richardson Sales Performance, Sey Coffee, First Light Books, Mienne and Better Weather.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “Independently confirmed in market on the client's own domain: 'Intelligent Agreement Management' and IAM are live Docusign platform naming. However, no product called 'Navigator' appears on Docusign's current products page.” docusign.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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Multi-market linguistic checking is routed through an external network with a stated turnaround: they 'can tap into the We Are Naming global network to understand many potential linguistic issues, typically within a day (and sometimes faster).' The network itself was not independently confirmed.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “Full-service name development is stated to include 'trademark, linguistic, common-law, and cultural prescreening'; the studio runs 'our own trademark searches, using software that helps us understand what's really going on when we say there's a trademark conflict.'” wildgeesestudio.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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The screening/clearance boundary is stated explicitly: the emailed 'working shortlist' is 'the list that you'll take to your legal counsel for final legal clearance.' Nothing on the site implies the studio's own search replaces counsel.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “Full-service name development is stated to include 'trademark, linguistic, common-law, and cultural prescreening'; the studio runs 'our own trademark searches, using software that helps us understand what's really going on when we say there's a trademark conflict.'” wildgeesestudio.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 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 17 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 9 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “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.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “Training fees are published in itemised detail: remote single workshop $6,000 base (up to 8 participants) plus $400 each additional; remote full program $25,000 plus $1,200 each; in-person single workshop $8,500 plus $500 each; in-person full program $30,000 plus $1,500 each. Modules are Process, Strategy, Creative, Risk, and Pricing and Scoping.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 8 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 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 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Second-round name development, joining client legal-counsel clearance conversations, and presenting the name journey to a board are all named as separate engagements clients additionally hire the studio for, not as included scope.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “The screening/clearance boundary is stated explicitly: the emailed 'working shortlist' is 'the list that you'll take to your legal counsel for final legal clearance.' Nothing on the site implies the studio's own search replaces counsel.” wildgeesestudio.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: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Adequate — 3 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 3 · Weak 8. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 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 — 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Scheduling cadence is published: kickoffs on Mondays, presentations and workshops on Thursdays, Fridays reserved for internal work, with timezone flexibility and Calendly links for each engagement milestone.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

On the record — “Multi-market linguistic checking is routed through an external network with a stated turnaround: they 'can tap into the We Are Naming global network to understand many potential linguistic issues, typically within a day (and sometimes faster).' The network itself was not independently confirmed.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 9 · Strong 1 · Adequate 5 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 10 of them score 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 — 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.

On the record — “The studio is principal-led: every project is led by the founder, previously director of verbal identity at Interbrand leading the naming practice and before that co-founder of Doublebit Narrative for seven years, supported by a named second namer and an assembled network of researchers, linguists, comedy writers and copywriters.” wildgeesestudio.com ↗

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