I'd guess that for the desired characteristics -- masculine, trustworthy -- respondents wound up applying a sort of 'handicap theory' analysis to the names. That's the idea that in certain status/fitness competitions, sometimes strength is signaled by demonstrating the ability to take on otherwise costly/tangential burdens. (A peacock's feathers and other sexually-selected exaggerated characteristics are the classic examples.)
That is, certain flaws in the names actually indicated: this brand is strong enough not to pander. 'Rowe Brook' is a bit mysterious. Probably a name, but one that is uncommon, not definitively gendered, and perhaps prone to mishearing (that silent 'e') or teasing puns. A person with that name, and choosing to use that name for their business, has nothing to prove and isn't cloying for approval: hence the high 'trustworthy' rating. (Two of the lowest-trustworthy are pandering: 'rogue ethike' and 'unbeholden'. Real unbeholden rogues don't have to remind people they're that way!)
'Pistol Lake' is sure to turn off a few people due to its gun-association. But again, the subconscious reasoning among a wider audience may be: if a brand can shake that off... maybe it's strong in other dimensions? ...or they're so manly they don't care what some may think?
Very interesting concept -- handicap theory. At the end of the day, we're confident our craftsmanship will speak for itself and will be what matters most, and the data from the survey did a lot to calm our own doubts about a name that we were very personally attached to.
It has been fascinating though, and we definitely plan to do further research for other decisions in the future.
Comments
Cool process.
I'd guess that for the desired characteristics -- masculine, trustworthy -- respondents wound up applying a sort of 'handicap theory' analysis to the names. That's the idea that in certain status/fitness competitions, sometimes strength is signaled by demonstrating the ability to take on otherwise costly/tangential burdens. (A peacock's feathers and other sexually-selected exaggerated characteristics are the classic examples.)
That is, certain flaws in the names actually indicated: this brand is strong enough not to pander. 'Rowe Brook' is a bit mysterious. Probably a name, but one that is uncommon, not definitively gendered, and perhaps prone to mishearing (that silent 'e') or teasing puns. A person with that name, and choosing to use that name for their business, has nothing to prove and isn't cloying for approval: hence the high 'trustworthy' rating. (Two of the lowest-trustworthy are pandering: 'rogue ethike' and 'unbeholden'. Real unbeholden rogues don't have to remind people they're that way!)
'Pistol Lake' is sure to turn off a few people due to its gun-association. But again, the subconscious reasoning among a wider audience may be: if a brand can shake that off... maybe it's strong in other dimensions? ...or they're so manly they don't care what some may think?
Very interesting concept -- handicap theory. At the end of the day, we're confident our craftsmanship will speak for itself and will be what matters most, and the data from the survey did a lot to calm our own doubts about a name that we were very personally attached to.
It has been fascinating though, and we definitely plan to do further research for other decisions in the future.