Everyone has access to the same tools now. That changes things.
When AI can generate five hundred names in thirty seconds, the bottleneck is no longer volume. It's judgment. The teams that name well in this environment aren't the ones who use AI better. They're the ones who understand what AI can't do, and build their process around that gap.
Distinction doesn't happen by accident. It's a discipline.
Start with the landscape, not the brief
Most naming efforts begin by looking inward: who we are, what we do, what we value. That work matters. But if you do it in isolation, you risk building a name that feels right internally and disappears externally.
Before you generate a single name, study what's already out there. What naming patterns dominate your category? Are competitors leaning on the same roots, the same sounds, the same abstract energy words? Map it. Then ask where the white space is.
Distinction is relative. A name can only stand out against something. If you don't know what you're standing out from, you're guessing.
Treat differentiation as a creative constraint, not an afterthought
"Make it distinctive" is not a strategy. It's a hope.
Distinctive names come from deliberate decisions about what territory to occupy. That means defining not just what your name should communicate, but what it should deliberately avoid. What constructs are overdone in your space? What emotional registers are everyone else occupying? What would genuinely surprise your audience?
Constraints aren't obstacles to creativity. They're the conditions that make it possible. When you know what's off the table, the interesting territory becomes clearer.
Go further than AI will go
AI clusters around the expected. That's the nature of how it works. So if you want to find names that don't feel like everything else, you have to push past the first layer of ideas.
The names that stick usually come from unexpected source territory: a word borrowed from another field, a metaphor that reframes what the brand actually does, a sound or structure that feels foreign to the category and right for the brand. That kind of creative leap requires human judgment at the wheel. AI can surface material. It can't make the call.
Volume helps, but direction matters more. Generate from as many different angles as possible, including the ones that feel wrong at first. The uncomfortable ideas are often where the best names hide.
Evaluate for separation, not just quality
A name can be good and still be generic. This is a trap.
When you're reviewing candidates, don't just ask whether a name is strong. Ask whether it's strong relative to the field. Would this name disappear if you placed it next to your top five competitors? Does it occupy territory no one else is in? Does it do something your category doesn't expect?
If the answer is no, it doesn't matter how much people in the room like it.
Own the decision
This is where most naming efforts break down. Not in the strategy. Not in the creative work. In the room where the final call gets made.
Distinctive names tend to make people nervous. They're unfamiliar. They don't sound like the category. Someone always says it feels risky. And without a clear framework for what "good" actually means, teams default to safety. Safety means sameness.
The antidote is a naming strategy clear enough to evaluate against. If you know what your name needs to do, you can make the case for something bold with evidence, not just instinct. That's what makes a room full of skeptics align behind an unexpected choice.
In an AI world, the tools are table stakes. The thinking is the differentiator.