We all know that the name of a product or service can have a significant impact on whether it succeeds. A good name can differentiate, position, communicate personality and more. Just think of Innocent, Agent Provocateur or Orange.

Many institutions were caught napping when the financial crisis struck in 2008, from regulators to ratings agencies and governments. More recently, they were once again snoozing when a string of sovereigns found themselves in difficulties and banks stopped lending to one another.

The finger of blame is often pointed in the direction of the regulators and the complexity of the instruments over whose creation they presided: credit default swaps, anyone? But should a portion of that blame be reserved for those responsible for the naming of financial instruments and terms?

Take sub-prime mortgage, for example. Had it been presented under the moniker, ‘a mortgage for broke people’ (or ‘junk mortgage’ for short), I can’t see that banks would have been fighting to snap them up. It would have been almost impossible for Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac to underwrite enormous amounts, using Americans’ money to supercharge the junk mortgage market. ‘Prime’ implied premium, ‘sub’ implied one level down from that i.e. quite good or at least average. Sub-prime naming, therefore, created an illusion of attractiveness and security that markets and consumers bought into, with dire consequences.

Exhibit two is quantitative easing. Let’s call it like it is: “pouring origin-less capital into the economy” (or “printing money” for short). Such a name would surely have made it more difficult for the Bank of England to argue that the British and American publics should wholeheartedly endorse it. The jury remains out as to the effectiveness of quantitative easing, but it certainly wouldn’t have been such an easy sell, had it not been named so opaquely.

I’ve unleashed our very own in-house Babel Fish to create a list of some of the most confusing financial terms, together with some helpful hints on their meanings. So in the hopes of dispelling any lingering confusion – and naturally, saving the world in the process – here are our top candidates for the name shame game:

• Dead cat bounce – a prediction, rather than a definition
• Double dip – sadly nothing to do with limbo dancing
• Executive compensation – excessive pay for the big bosses
• Golden parachute – bonus for failure
• Free banking – banking with a sting in the tail

Jokes aside, I believe that the names given to financial instruments and terms have a big impact on the world economy and the actions that are acceptable to governments, regulators, societies and individuals. We should all pay closer attention to the semantics and especially semiotics of these terms, before they cause global financial mayhem in the future.

Assuming the logic of the argument for a moment, then, shouldn’t the FSA, Securities Commission and other bodies be scrutinising how financial instruments are named? If they want to change the banking culture and make the financial world more transparent, as they claim, naming must surely fall under their remit. Setting rules and regulations is vital, yes – but so is an understanding of how the world of finance connects with people on the ground. From day to day, those connections will most likely come about through face-value naming.

For too long, mysticism and spin has been the mainstay of the global financial institutions and their branded products. The Campaign for Plain English has done a great job of driving simplicity of language in the high-street banks, particularly when it comes to benefits and T&Cs, but it’s time that the industry accepted the need for a new type of language across the board: one that removes the smoke and mirrors and pulls back the curtains to show the cogs whirring beneath. Let’s continue the good work started in the British high street branches and take it out across the world’s financial capitals – the best way to reconnect with a disgruntled and sceptical public may be to take responsibility for starting the conversation.

In this series we will be exploring the greatest misuse of insights. Taking a look at brands and products that have got it wrong and examining the core insight behind the move. Read more

In light of the economic changes over the last few years coupled with the recent debt crisis, the Luxury industry’s perceived immunity has certainly been put to the test.

2009 saw Harvey Nichols profits slump 40% and more recently Gianluca Brozzetti, chief  executive officer for renowned designer Roberto Cavalli, has warned that luxury goods companies should “brace for weaker growth in 2012”, particularly in Europe where the debt crisis has left consumers feeling unsure and cautious.

One bright spot clearly stands out in the bleak picture, quite literally in all its yellow, luxury imbued glory: Selfridges. The department store has been the consistent forerunner of luxury trends, delivering growth in the sector and reporting a near 20% rise in profits towards the end of 2011.  So instead of looking at where brands like Harvey Nichols are struggling let’s take a closer look at why brands like Selfridges are shining unabated.

Experience is an overarching strength of Selfridges and the most important factor in its success. It adds another dimension to the purchase journey, engaging emotional connections to the brand and differentiating it from other retailers. Experience is something that Selfridges not only do well, but is something with which the brand is synonymous. The Selfridge’s experience is brought to life through the following 4 key attributes:

1. Exclusivity. This may be an obvious attribute for a luxury retailer but Selfridges really bring this to life and have created a strong association with exclusivity through grand unveilings, exclusive designer concessions, and VIP events held in store such as the “Corgi flash mob” held for the Diamond Jubilee Weekend.

2. Aesthetic . The window displays, in-store displays and environment are iconic and add to the feeling of being somewhere special, a place where even the smallest aesthetic detail suggests aspirational, desirable and unique goods.

3. Inspiration. Consistency with designer choices and on trend displays have positioned Selfridges as not only the luxury day out but also as a guru of style, consumers looking to Selfridges to lead the way and provide inspiration on the latest trends and ‘looks’.

4. Treats. Whether it’s a hand massage at Jo Malone, lunch and champagne or affordable high street fashion inspired by courageous designer displays, Selfridges provides not only a shopping experience but a luxury day out.

Selfridges have built strong credentials in luxury and fashion, which enable them to credibly provide both inspiration and guidance on trends. Credibility is key in luxury and maintaining it is hard given the fast moving, ever changing nature of categories like fashion and beauty. However Selfridges maintain these four key elements under a simple, clear and iconic brand which provides consumers with a relevant reference point within the often confusing and intimidating luxury goods context.

These four key areas are not specific to Selfridges either, there are many ways to bring exclusivity, aesthetic, inspiration and treats to life and do it differently and to be able to deliver well on all of these things is to be successful within luxury.

At The Value Engineers we champion different ways of thinking, coming at problems from a variety of ways. For us it’s not just right or left brain thinking, we like to think analytically, analogically, deviantly and randomly. One of the stories in Jonah Lehrer’s excellent new book “Imagine: How creativity works” suggests we should add weirdly to our list.

Lehrer tells the story of the creation of one of the world’s most famous advertising end-lines and concludes that it illustrates the importance of “incorporating a little weirdness into the creative process”.

The line in question is Nike’s, and the weirdness is the source of inspiration for that line – the last words of a murderer, Gary Gilmore, who was executed in 1977.

In 1988, Dan Weiden was working on a new campaign for Nike and while he and his team had decided on a series of clips of different athletes from different sports, the problem was that the campaign lacked an end-line and the presentation to an expectant client was fast approaching.

Working late into the night, Weiden suddenly found himself thinking about Gary Gilmore.

“So it’s the middle of the night, and I’m sitting at my desk and I’m thinking about how Gilmore died. This was in Utah, and they dragged Gilmore out in front of the firing squad. Before they put the hood over his head, the chaplin asks Gilmore if he has any last words. And he pauses and he says ‘Let’s do it.’

And I remember thinking ‘That is so f*****g courageous.’ Here is this guy calling for his own death.

And then the next thing I know I’m thinking about my shoe commercials. I didn’t like the way it was said, actually, so I made it a little different. I wrote ‘Just Do It’ on a piece of paper and as soon as I saw it, I knew. That was my slogan”

The news that BT have bought the rights to show 38 live Premier League matches for each of the next two years is interesting for two reasons.

It could be said to be a milestone in the journey towards technology platform integration when a telco company outbids TV rivals to win the right to broadcast the most watched domestic soccer league in the world. Are BT setting their stall out for a bigger TV play?

Secondly, the money. The £3bn price tag that the Premier League has put on the 154 live games values each game at an average of £20M - which makes next year’s season the most lucrative yet. BT must have decided that the potential advertising revenue and additional subscribers to their service is worth the outlay. Who can blame them, when this is the exact same model that Sky used to grow their subscription base in the 90s?

What isn’t clear however is what BT are going to do different to make being second choice to Sky as a football broadcaster work for them when ESPN and Setanta before them struggled to top the viewing league table.