As a social media strategist, I find it hard to believe that the names of some Web 2.0 companies don't play a large part in traditional marketer's distrust/leeriness/general dismissal of new media. When traditional marketers say things like, "New media is a fad for kids," it's hard to refute it when you have to use company names like Twitter, Flickr, FriendFeed and Pownce, to answer their questions.


Don't get me wrong, I think the services themselves are great...and the names are fine, too. As long as you're talking to other new media types.
It's just having to say them when talking about the benefits of social media to I-don't-know-about-all-this-new-media-stuff CEO's, CFO's and investor relations types is a bit...weird. Even for me and if you've ever heard me speak, you know I don't hold back much. :)
If we could play let's pretend, what do you think it would have done to corporate new media adoption rates if Twitter was called Stay-in-Touch, Flickr was Photo Share, FriendFeed was New Media Dashboard and Pownce was Share Data? Or some other equally absurd boring easy-to-understand names?
Would new media professionals have to defend results, ROI and viability as much?
Would our projects get the left-over "experimental" budget?
Would we have to do so much gosh darned explaining?
Would we be able to keep our collective street cred as "the cool people who understand all that tech stuff"?