Introduction
In the modern world of branding, consumers are becoming increasingly familiar with the use of 'wacky' misspellings (sometimes described as 'sensational spellings'), with familiar examples including Flickr, Reddit, Tumblr, and many more.
There are many reasons why this approach to selecting a brand name can be an effective one, including the facts that these types of misspellings can attract customer attention and aid memorability, and can make it easier obtain a protective trademark and secure an available domain name (as compared to the use of a dictionary word or proper name, for example). In conflict with these considerations, however, are the facts that misspellings generally are understood[1] to generate adverse brand attitudes (including questions regarding brand sincerity) and are frequently perceived as a marketing 'gimmick'.
A deep analysis of the wider world of consumer attitude to 'misspelled' brands has recently been published by researchers from the Universities of Arkansas and Tennessee[2,3]. The study finds that the negative impact associated with the use of a minor misspelling can be offset through the careful choice of a particular spelling (or other branding features) to aid with brand-name interpretation by consumers. These types of insight are key to success in the areas of brand selection and marketing and, by extension, to considerations such as domain name registration (an area which was covered in previous work, providing overviews of techniques applicable to the discovery of available unregistered 'brandable' domain names[4,5,6]).
It is also important to note that the types of misspelled names considered here are completely distinct from other cases involving the deliberate use of deceptive (brand- or domain) names similar to those of third-party established trusted brands, for the purposes of impersonation and fraud[7,8].
Definitions and a deeper dive
The study of consumer reactions to misspellings in brand names is based fundamentally on the concepts of linguistic fluency (i.e. the ease of processing written content into language) and conceptual fluency (the ease with which associated meaning is brought to mind). Central ideas include the propositions that, overall, consumers process names more effectively when they are more similar to familiar terms (such as dictionary words), and that greater processing fluency tends (in general) to lead to improved brand perception. Lower degrees of 'orthographic' similarity to familiar strings can also be counteracted (to a degree) through the use of phonetic cues (i.e. those which are apparent when the brand name is sounded out) to the intended meaning.
A core idea within this overall framework is that the use of only minor misspellings can have a small or negligible negative impact on brand perception, which can then be more than compensated through the clever application of other marketing-related mediating factors. This approach thereby allows the brand owner to take advantage of the other attractive features of misspellings, such as greater trademark and domain name availability.
As part of the analysis presented in the recent study, the types of misspellings used by brands were categorised into a set of 'types' - strikingly, together accounting for over half of all names in a curated list (from 2023) of 100 recent start-ups, which was used as an example dataset in the study (aside from only 29% which used 'correct' spellings, and another 20% using wholly new terms (neologisms) or proper names).
The categories of brand misspellings, as defined in the study (and illustrated with examples taken from it) were:
- Compound - combining words together by (just) removing intervening spaces (e.g. 'AutoZone')
- Lengthening - adding or repeating a letter (e.g. 'Mixx')
- Foreign - substituting a character with one from an alternative language (e.g. 'Røde')
- Letteronym - substituting a letter for a word or part of a word (e.g. 'La-Z-Boy')
- Portmanteau - blending two or more other words (and removing parts of the component words), to create a new term (e.g. 'Duracell')
- Phonetic - using a misspelling pronounced in the same way as the ‘intended’ term (e.g. 'Froot Loops')
- Abridgment - shortening the term through the removal of one or more letters (e.g. 'Crumbl')
- Alphanumeric - substituting a numeral for a word or part of a word (e.g. '4ward')
- Leetspeak - substituting a numeral or special character for a visually similar letter (but with no modification to pronunciation) (e.g. 'E11EVEN')
Another key idea from the study is the fact that not all types of misspelling elicit similar responses; some decrease the 'processing fluency' of readers / consumers more than others - for example, abridgements, alphanumerics, and ‘leetspeak’ are generally found to be harder to process than compounds and lengthening. More predictably, fluency was also found to be decreased further in cases where there are higher degrees of misspelling (of a particular type). Other factors are also important, such as the effect on processing fluency of the proximity of an 'incorrect' character to the start of the word. This concept is related to a similar idea which is familiar from previous work on mark similarity measurement[9].
Counteracting the adverse effects of a misspelling may be other factors which can aid in conceptual fluency for the brand name in question, such as similarity to other familiar terms with well-understood meanings, the use of additional visual cues in the associated brand presentation, or the alignment of the spelling with characteristics such as the owner’s name, or the product or business type (e.g. a use of 'Quik' for 'quick', invoking an association with the underlying sentiment (quickness) through a shortening of the word; the use of the 'oo' for 'Froot Loops', resembling the shape of the actual cereal; or the use of a term such as 'Scentimental' for a brand in a relevant product area, such as a florist). These types of enhancement are found to positively influence brand attitudes, level of brand preference, and favourability to word-of-mouth recommendations, and can be particularly effective if other subjective criteria are also met (such as through the use of a misspelling considered to be 'fun' or 'cute').
However, there are likely also to be other factors which must be considered, such as whether the industry area of the brand in question is traditionally perceived to be associated with trust or accuracy (for example), in which case a misspelled brand name may be deemed less acceptable.
Conclusions
An understanding of the nature of, and of consumer reactions to, misspellings in brand names, can be a key component of an effective marketing strategy, particularly when a new brand name is being selected.
The use of a misspelling can be a compelling solution to problems associated with pre-existing IP rights and poor domain name availability, but can have an adverse effect on brand perception.
However, it appears to be the case that an optimum approach can be the selection of a 'minor' misspelling, combined with the use of other tactics to counteract its potentially negative impact (in terms of ease of word processing and customer perception). It is also worth noting that the 'degree' of misspelling can be quantified using previously explored ideas on mark similarity measurement.
Examples of successful approaches to improve the effectiveness of a candidate brand name might include the careful selection of a particular misspelling, or the use of appropriate visual branding elements, to convey other aspects of the intended brand values or message.
References
[1] J.P. Costello, J. Walker and R.W. Reczek (2023). "Choozing" the Best Spelling: Consumer Response to Unconventionally Spelled Brand Names. J. Marketing, 87 (6), pp. 889-905, https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429231162367. (Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00222429231162367)
[2] L.W. Smith and A. Abell (2025). The Art of Misspelling: Unraveling the Diverging Effects of Misspelled Brand Names on Consumer Responses. J. Consumer Research, ucaf020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaf020. (Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucaf020/8106524)
[3] https://domainnamewire.com/2025/08/20/new-research-reveals-which-misspelled-brand-names-work-best/
[4] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/overview-brandable-domain-name-discovery-techniques-so3ye/
[6] https://circleid.com/posts/availability-analysis-of-brandable-variant-string-domain-names
[7] https://www.iamstobbs.com/opinion/you-spelled-it-wrong-exploring-typo-domains
[8] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press, 2025), Chapter 7: 'Creation of deceptive URLs'
This article was first published on 28 August 2025 at:
No comments:
Post a Comment