What's in a name?

Residential Architect, July, 2004 by Michael Driehorst, William E.S. Kaufman, Michael Hawker

Your "name game" column ("The Name Game," January/February 2004, page 13) was definitely interesting and thought-provoking.

I work for a marketing communications firm and can see both sides of the name game. Like architectural firms, advertising and public relations firms also traditionally go by the founding partner's names (e.g., The Lauerer Markin Group). However, I have seen some companies use adjectives or other terms to try to establish a brand for their company. (There's a firm in Toledo, Ohio, called "Communica," with a long "a" sound.)

On the one hand, there are valid reasons for using a more descriptive name, as you point out. However, there is also something about putting your name behind what you do. Sort of like a signature. In working with building industry manufacturers, we are often involved in developing new product and even company names. Developing a name that is memorable and says all that a company wants to say about itself--in only one to four words--is not an easy task.

As you seem to imply toward the end of your column, something would be lost--perhaps a sense of personal responsibility--if too many firms were to seek out concept names.

As a side note, I do appreciate and much look forward to the range of stories and information published in residential architect and other Hanley Wood magazines.

Michael Driehorst

Media Relations Manager

The Lauerer Markin Group

Maumee, Ohio

Several years ago, I formed a start-up or spin-off firm of my own. The comments in your editorial "The Name Game" mirror my sentiments exactly. Architecture has too long been perceived by the general public as an egocentric profession. Even though the vision of great design and the birth of a firm may have generated from one, its successes rely on the combined efforts of many. After all, would Microsoft be where it is today if we knew it as "The Bill Gates Software Company"?

Thank you for the continued good work and insight into the profession!

William E.S. Kaufman,

AIA, NCARB

Principal, WESKetch

Architecture

Millington, N.J.

After reading your article "The Name Game" and finding it interesting, I reflected on how I had approached naming my own firm. In 2003, I started "Zoetic Architecture & Design." I could have easily used my last name and followed in the footsteps of so many others. I trained at Taliesin, and, of course, we know of "Frank Lloyd Wright Architect." I also apprenticed with Gunnar Birkerts, who was then "Gunnar Birkerts & Associates" and still practices as "Gunnar Birkerts & Architects" In fact, one could say that all the famed architects are known by their personal names.

So why not me? Do I not desire lots of press attention and glory within my profession? Of course, I do. I do have some ego. However, I decided to take my ego out of the equation in favor of the bigger idea, the grand idea behind my work. In lieu of "natural," "organic," "alternative," etc., I call my philosophy "zoetic." On a practical level, I also named it such so that if anyone partners with me in the future, we aren't battling over the name. The company can accommodate anyone. This doesn't suggest that I forget my architectural "heritage" and what I bring to the table. After all, I started the firm after all these years of education and training and developing my own approach.

This raises an interesting issue. If clients hire "stars," particularly in the residential market, then how do I address marketing efforts with multiple partners? Will my firm allow for stars to grow and light brightly? What if one of the partners overshadows the others? All very interesting issues on a practical scale. Thanks for your interesting article.

Michael Hawker

Principal/Founding Member

Zoetic Architecture &

Design

St. Louis, Mo.