We can probably all agree that anyone could subjectively think any particular product name is a bad product name… But are you suggesting that SAFE is objectively, in a scientific sense, a bad collection of letters? For me that will need some clarification.
6 Likes
The name seems fine to me: Secure Access For Everyone. Nothing offensive about it either. Maybe it is a little generic in terms of search results etc, but I wouldn’t say it is by any means terrible or wrong.
Tbh, you come across a bit passive aggressive, which also makes me suspicious of your motivations. That may just be me though.
12 Likes
SAFE is absolutely fine, i’ve not had any complaints from the people I have introduced to the project. SAFENet is just accepted, it is very descriptive, it IS WOW.
It also radiates the feels of SAFE, safety, virus free, snooping free, its not the INTERnet, its the SAFEnet.
Renaming SAFENet would be as ridiculous as renaming the INTERnet.
Products like JAMS, SAFE-CMS will catch the public’s attention.
I’m totaly against renaming SAFENet, it would be a massive mistake - and my fellow tech users and investors would feel the same way.
7 Likes
Name is perfect, MAID needed to go, but SAFE Network is perfect in my opinion,
10 Likes
Yes, it has always been a terrible idea to use a commoditized brand name. But unfortunately it is already too late to be changing it at this point.
In the VC world a SAFE is a simple contract for startups that need seed funding, I personally find it tiresome to be clarifying what the Safe Network is about (not that SAFE, but this Safe), and that by itself is a failure. A brand must sound unequivocal.
Absurd names work because they make them stand out and because no further clarification is needed.
Homonyms always suck, and homophones also suck
In any case, it is what we have and something worse than having a bad name is to change it and further the confusion.
PS: by the way SafeNet is a registered trademark by Gemalto so forget about using the short form legally.
4 Likes
Thank you. You understand.
Thank you for clearly stating your disapproval Zoki.
But then I like the Internets. Very descriptive for an interconnecting network… Internet needs no renaming.
The Web, web 2.0 or 3.0 has been tried, though.
And that’s one reason why renaming should seriously be considered.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Traktion.
You see I and a few others here like me were not heard properly before and some
of our words dismissed and ignored as a result. In a way not unlike the juvenile
Armchair Wrestler behaviour trolling this thread.
But then that’s overseen because maybe this is better than being direct? Safe?
So I decided to be direct and honest because thats the safest way to get attention.
(SAFE, The Safest Way to Avoid Censorship … ugh don’t know yet)
My intentions are nothing but pure and well meant my dear friend.
[quote=“JayBird, post:21, topic:22297, full:true”]
We can probably all agree that anyone could subjectively think any particular product name is a bad product name… [/quote]
That’s my point.
If the name is unequivocal it becomes a subject of interpretation with all sorts of problems as a result.
And then there degrees between, excellent, good and bad names. Marketing can do a lot of good here.
Read the book: Don’t Make Me Think. Nike is short and can be uttered easily in different languages for example.
So Nike is unequivocal or non-ambiquous.
Not all of us are scientists. Roughly 80% aren’t.
I like the Safe network, rolls off the tongue pretty well.
On a side note, saying things like “terrible” and “awful” is a pretty good way to get people rilled up against your idea and setting yourself up to fail. But who knows, bring us your best shot and see if you can reverse the tide.
7 Likes
Google made me feel yahoo! They’ve become quite the opposite now.
@Solfeggio on the flip side, repeating the same idea or sentiment, doesn’t make it any truer. Silly thread methinks. What would you have - “qwikbucks” and pump and dump it? urgh!
SAFE is an great name with great connotations. Rebranding is the kind of action taken to destabilize a product’s perception. The rebrand of MasterCoin to Omni for no good reason, didn’t much help their visibility.
4 Likes
I agree I came off a tad to harsh there. I do not mean for this to work against my proposal. Sorry.
All this talk got me thinking. Perhaps my idea is good for a separate but complementary app or function on Safe.
I’m going to investigate this more.
So thanks to all for participating. It has been helpful.
3 Likes
The perception of what is SAFE and what is built on top is important. SAFE is for most users will likely become ‘just the network’; so, in that sense perhaps is not important… once other branded apps etc are in place.
You could pitch then for a rebrand of the browser of some other core element that will be directly impacting on users.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you are saying here. But no dump and all pump.
SAFE Network, no dump all pump. There. Haha. I’m so funny.
On the flip side rebranding and such have helped many brands while keeping the same product. And it works.
I suggest renaming and rebranding yes.
humbug… branding is fluff and nonsense… focus on the content… that’s what serious supporters will always look to. The time for gimmicks is later on.
1 Like
Thank you David. This thread has helped me with a few insights.
So perhaps my idea of Safe could be a complementary app too Safe. I’m going to check the ideas and projects
for Safe to see where it all stands now.
Don’t be so sad 
you surely enjoy some spoils of life. Think about it.
It’s those app’s that will need the personality… the network can be a background to those.
not sad; quite the opposite - just don’t care for negative perceptions, such as the OP was stiring … the brand as is works well on many levels.
1 Like