Project outline

Outcome

Role

Scope

Methods

iCount needed a new name to enter the US market. I led a 5-phase, research-driven renaming process

Board-approved name, launch messaging concept initiated

Design lead (reporting directly to the CEO), led a UX writer (Ido)

Brand positioning, research design, naming strategy, validation

Market analysis, linguistic & cultural analysis, quantitative user research (n=300)

The strategic problem

iCount, an Israeli accounting platform, needed a new name to enter the US market - one that was legally clear, culturally credible, and built to last. I led a five-phase, research-driven renaming process that ended with a board-approved name and the start of a new launch messaging system. Along the way, the validation data challenged my own hypothesis - and the most interesting result wasn't which name won, but what it revealed about how US users decide to trust financial software.

This was not simply a renaming exercise; it was a market-entry decision that would shape positioning, messaging, and product perception.

Context and intervention

A US expansion attempt one and a half years prior had already resulted in a selected domain and name.

The contracted team's chosen name - Klyme - misrepresented the product and carried an obvious risk: Lyme disease. This was later validated in our audience survey, where over 40% of first-impression responses referenced disease or illness.

Reopening the decision meant challenging a sunk investment and prior executive approval. I demonstrated that long-term positioning risk outweighed the sunk cost, and I was given ownership to lead a structured, research-led renaming process.

Success criteria and constraints

What will a successful name do?

I aligned with the UX copywriter (Ido), CEO, and PM on what the name needed to do.

It was decided that the new name must:

• communicate accounting/business management clearly
• signal trust and credibility (critical in financial software)
• avoid over-indexing on a single function (e.g., “counting”)
• remain extensible as the product evolves

Constraints

These constraints were treated as design inputs, not blockers:

• a strong preference for a .com
• legal clearance (trademark and copyright)
• bilingual friendly - a Hebrew speaking audience must be able to pronounce it in the event that the name is carried back to Israel

Ido and I added constraints aimed at longevity:

Strategic approach

Our process spanned the following phases:

Phase 1: strategic framing

Purpose: establish what the name must do in the US market.

• defined brand personality and tone based on prior research
• aligned on target audience and desired market perception

Phase 2: concept generation

Purpose: explore naming directions aligned to positioning, not individual words.

• developed 10 naming concepts aligned to positioning
• generated name options per concept

Phase 3: internal filtering and constraints check

Purpose: narrow down while respecting real-world limits.

• applied exclusion criteria (clarity, intuitiveness, memorability, brand alignment)
• evaluated legal, linguistic, and domain feasibility
• narrowed to two internally supported finalist names
• approved names with the board

Phase 4: stakeholder realignment

Purpose: ****address leadership concerns while maintaining a structured, evidence-based approach.

• CEO requested additional options before committing to validation
• domain constraint was revisited, allowing .finance and .io alongside .com
• generated two additional naming options within the expanded constraint set
• approved the additional name with the board before moving onto the validation stage

Phase 5: market validation and risk mitigation

Purpose: reduce risk before board commitment.

• ran quantitative user survey (n=300) via UserTesting with target US audience
• evaluated names on pronounceability, intuitiveness, memorability, and brand alignment
• conducted legal clearance and patent checks
• reviewed findings with CEO and board at finalist stage