PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I often wish I had a job suggesting names for cars, hotels and other businesses.

Who has that job anyway?

Who suggested that it would be a good idea for the car company, Mercedes Benz, to come out this year with a car called AMG?

Who decides which letters – or numbers – go well enough together to earn the right to be used? Who advised that some Acura cars should go by the initials, TSX?

Or, as I was in North Seattle over the weekend, who decided that Microsoft would be a good name for a company that has grown, in only a few short years, to be an international behemoth? Or, Apple, with a picture with a bite out of an apple, for a mark?

Or, Facebook even as we anticipate another appearance before a Congressional committee by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Without much previous experience, most observers thought Zuckerberg survived his first day yesterday with mostly flying colors, including in the performance of his company’s stock.

But, back to the name issue – Facebook works well, in part because a made-up name, Facebook, existed long enough and is popular enough to gain huge brand awareness.

I answer again, who knows how company or brand names are decided?

All of this leads me to the story about how the company I co-founded more than 25 years ago, with two partners, got its name. There was no outside research involved; we just thought about the question ourselves.

One of the partners thought a good name for our lobbying and public relations company would be “talisman.”

Here is the dictionary definition of a term that, frankly, is not used much in normal human discourse:

“Anything whose presence exercises a remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions.”

Well, I guess that definition would have worked for a company like ours. But I also thought the word conjured up some kind of magic to do our work, which could not have been farther from the on-the-ground truth.

Our role was not “to exercise remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions,” in much the same way as a magician would do. Rather, it was to work hard to represent our clients and to help them put their best foot forward.

So, with “talisman” in the rear-view mirror, at least my thoughts turned to other options.

For me, there were several:

• Pinnacle, a name that would signal our commitment to reach the top of our business for the benefit of our clients.
• Promontory, another word that would signal the same aspiration.
• Summit,
• On Target, a name that would signal our commitment to work in ways that would be “on target” with the desires and wishes of our clients.
• Or, my favorite, Cornerstone, a name that would signal that our efforts would provide a basis – the foundation cornerstone, if you will – for our clients to move forward.

What did we choose?

None of the above.

Eventually, we landed on using our own partner last names – Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick. All of us had produced, in years before our start in 1990, track records of solid performance in previous jobs.

Perhaps a bit presumptuously, we thought our good work – and our name familiarity – would work well to cement our start in a lobbying and public relations business.

It worked.

Often, the name Conkling Fiskum & McCormick (yes, I was trapped in the middle!) was shortened to CFM, initials which are still used today and which have gained notice for the quality of our work in Oregon and regionally, as well as in our federal lobbying office in Washington, D.C.

When one of the original founding partners – Pat McCormick – retired from CFM a few years ago to start a public relations form with his daughter, we retained the initials, though gave up the name McCormick.

And, in a nod to a specific commitment in our work, we added the word “strategic” to our title, which indicated that we intended to offer strategic, not just tactical, services. Strategy is a big word, connoting a commitment to establishing over-arching goals and objectives before engaging in tactics.

So, we became CFM Strategic Communications. And, for my part, I continue to like the name because it, in fact, underlines the professional perspective we take to our work.

What’s in a name? Not much on its own, but, if you use the name to build brand awareness and credibility, a name can mean a lot. For us, at CFM Strategic Communications, our name has served us well.

**********

Footnote: As the intro to this blog notes, I have retired from CFM Strategic Communications, but I retain the title “emeritus partner” and continue to participate in CFM work as an informal advisor.