Once Again I Ask… What’s In A Name?
I’m intrigued that the recording artist formerly known as Machine Gun Kelly has decided to go by “π’ππ ” on online platforms, signaling a likely name change.
π« π« π«
He’s made this change in response to fans and critics alike decrying the implied endorsement of guns and gun violence of his previous name.
This move is understandable but I’m more interested in the shift it illustrates in the nature of brands, even personal brands.
Previously, a name and a logo were a large portion of what a brand WAS. But I’ve long felt brands increasingly grow from forging relationships with desired consumers (or people, as I prefer to call them).
As such, brands are increasingly about dialogue and responsiveness. Of course, this is fueled by social media and the ability to share real-time and sometimes quite passionate feedback. But if feedback is being shared and then ignored, relationships can die.
When names were more emblematic changing one could imply a lack of integrity and also carried much greater risks of losing recognition. How would people find you under a different name?
But when we carry the ability to locate someone or something tucked in our pockets, a stage name like Machine Gun Kelly feels like one artistic choice among many. Changing this choice feels like a savvy bid for relevance and relationship, not a weird-ass eccentricity, like when Prince did it in 1993.
Said another way, I think if Madonna were emerging today she might change her name every 5 years.
What do you guys think?
If you enjoyed this post, check out:
