Editorial Edge Plus Premium: OEM Naming Conventions & How They Dilute Flagships

Android is maturing. The air of an OS that "only a mother could love" (or enthusiasts in this case) is gone, and that's great. Material design, optimizations in hardware and software sends a clear message of the direction in which Google and OEMs want to take it in the future. However, one aspect still lags behind…

The naming of devices

Let me start off by saying that I fully acknowledge the importance of brand recognition. For OEMs, their brand, logo, device names and even skins are commodities. It's what sets them apart. 2015 has brought more flagship devices than ever, something we covered recently, but one aspect that was not highlighted is less obvious: the need to separate the devices by naming. Samsung is a prime example of the conundrum that arises. The full name of one of their latest devices is Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Plus — a flagship, too. Quite the mouthful. I should also add that Samsung are not alone in this.

Let's take a look at the Nexus line up. The tablets have followed a logical naming blueprint. It was Nexus [screen size in inches][year of release]. The same was mostly true for the Nexus 5 and 6. This year, they've deviated from that formula with the 5X and 6P. There's an argument to be made against calling them Nexus 5, 2015 edition, however. Simply changing the year implies minor improvements.

"The right name can achieve an effect greater than the sum of its parts"

Adding the "X" and "P" instinctively tell us there's something more than just another iteration. Perhaps this is why Samsung and Sony have decided to add adjectives (or buzzwords!) to make a distinction between their devices. I'd still argue that in the latter cases, the naming has reached a point of saturation.

The good old Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch

Simply adding more words works when there's one or two to choose from, or when they make sense due to the distinctions involved, but in a year with three or more devices launched by several manufacturers, it's doing more harm than good. The right name can do wonders for sales. The right name anchors the product in the mind of the consumer by tugging on our emotions and working on connotations. It can achieve an effect greater than the sum of its parts. One could then infer the inverse to be true as well. When we've got a plethora of striking, powerful words such as Premium, Plus, Pure, Style, and One to choose from, it makes simplicity stand out. The 6P. The 5X.

Therein lies a touch brilliance. Leave the buzzwords out, and let the consumers ponder on what the "X" stands for. However, this is easier for the Nexus lineup to achieve simply because many of the other manufacturers have already done the equivalent several years ago.

Since the release of the Galaxy S in mid-2010, Samsung has stuck to the Galaxy S# convention for their high-end non-phablet phones. There are two great arguments against changing that. First, it goes back to brand recognition. Millions of dollars spent on advertising is nothing to scoff at, and the Galaxy S phones (in particular the Galaxy part) are easily identifiable with consumers). Second, by changing the naming convention completely, it would be implied that this is a major overhaul, or something new altogether, and could cause us to demand more than just a "slightly better in every way" version, but therein lies my argument.

Taking the next step, one number and noun at a time.

A complete revamp would have been out of place with the S5, but not for the S6. It would have been the perfect time. Glass and metal rather than mostly plastic body, a more mainstream introduction to the "edge" than the Note Edge of 2014, no microSD card or removable battery. It still uses TouchWiz and the overall design is relatively similar, but enough has changed to justify a rebranding.

On the other end of the spectrum is LG. Their G-series has followed a logical path (but foregoing the "Optimus" bit), but recently they side-stepped that with the "V10". Armed with nearly identical specs to the 6 month older G4, it's hard to see why they went with a name such as that, and it raises a few questions. Where are the other 9 devices? What's so special about it that it should warrant a major overhaul in brand name? Why is "V" when your current flagship is a "G"? LG's marketing strategy has been nigh on nonexistent, practically releasing it and going "oh yeah, we did a thing". But aside from the "secondary screen", the extra GB of RAM and 64GB of memory as standard, it's very similar to the G4. That doesn't make it bad; in fact, it's a great device. As it stands though, perhaps the name betrays LG's own view on it. Even if you make a great device, but don't know why you did it or what makes it great, it's difficult to convince customers to purchase it. Perhaps they simply couldn't afford the marketing after the G4, but the right name (and marketing to back it up) could have turned it into something more than the G4's slightly bigger brother.

"HTC's "One" branding signalled uniqueness and distinction, but now there are too many similar "One" phones"

Another factor to consider is that if your customers can't be bothered to pronounce the full name of your device, do you lose out on word-of-mouth marketing? Perhaps, perhaps not. Samsung could be banking on you simply showing off your brand new "Samsung". No "edge", "Note 5 Plus Premium Extra" or anything of the sort. But if that is an intentional strategy, it's a risky one.

A consumer with a budget device ranting about how bad their "Galaxy" is would do damage to the brand in the same way lauding it would help it — a notorious problem with Samsung in areas where their low-end Galaxy phones proliferated.

HTC had a great brand (and took pride in), the "One" — a name that signals uniqueness and distinction. Recently though, that has been diluted, and now the One branding is neither unique nor distinct. The "One" was retrogradely named the One M7, and then the One M8. Then the M8s. The M8 Eye. The M8+. The M9, M9+, M9+ Aurora Edition, A9… The unfortunate sales trend for HTC as of late isn't going to be turned around by releasing more iterations of the same phone.

That's not to say that the M9+ Aurora Edition should have been named vastly different, but if you can't fit all the buzzwords and plus signs into the ad space anymore, it might be time for an overhaul, rather than another iteration of the same phone. Especially considering the sales figures of the M9 and the effect they had. Instead of having one device that didn't sell well, they now had several. They doubled down, rather than cut their losses and move on.

The aspect of choice then, which in my opinion is the greatest strength of Android, carries another implication. The need to keep devices distinct, with plenty of choices from whichever OEM you favour, and thus the many different unjustifiable brand names and the all-out assault of trendy buzzwords and inflated adjectives could be harming Android itself. Not using a simple, clear naming convention and the need for brand recognition and diversity has helped cement Android as an operating system for the enthusiasts and tech oriented. Android isn't complicated or illogical if you don't want it to be. These days, it "just works" out of the box if that's all you want out of your smartphone. If you want more; great. It's got that too. And finally, this is not just an Android problem: just look at the iPhone 6S Plus.

What do you think of current smartphone names? Which ones are uninspired, and which ones are not?

source: xdadevelopers