The Importance of Naming in Today’s M&A Megadeal Environment

The global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) sector is rebounding toward a projected $4 trillion in total deal value for 2026—its strongest showing since 2021—megadeals over $5 billion now account for nearly half of all transaction value. And not surprisingly, artificial intelligence is actively reshaping this landscape, particularly in power infrastructure and AI data centers, as traditional software cools. While not every deal requires naming, large transformation deals do. For these record-breaking transactions, securing a new name remains the most visible, symbolic, and long-lasting decision of the merger. But shockingly, many companies still get it wrong. 

Getting to a great name in these fast-paced and high-stakes environments requires significant care and attention. What sometimes starts out as “let’s brainstorm and come up with something cool” can often turn into a highly emotional, intensely subjective process that can create leadership friction and decision-making paralysis, ultimately delaying a brand’s launch.  

The following are five best practices to get M&A naming right:  

1. M&A naming is not a democracy. 

Since naming a new enterprise is something most executives experience just once in their careers, many leaders don’t want to make the decision alone, and invite stakeholders from every function to weigh in. However, there will likely already be numerous decision-making voices at the table—including multiple CEOs, private equity partners, other investors, or board members. In these multi-stakeholder environments, we believe the decision-making body should be kept to the right balance of as few executives as possible, but as many as necessary, with focused participation early in the process (yes, even CEOs).  

Despite the perception that naming is a fun and creative exercise, the reality is, it’s a high-stakes, subjective decision that will carry your organization into the next several years, possibly decades. A smaller decision-making team that is engaged from the outset is more likely to reach a successful outcome.  

Resist the temptation to test name candidates with employees. While inclusion is a noble goal, employees are ultimately the audience for a reveal, not decision makers in the process.  

2. The name you want is probably taken, but there’s a better name out there that isn’t. 

This one is a tough pill to swallow. But with most M&A deals being highly global, getting a name to clear across many trademark classes and geographies requires deep, divergent thinking. Many intuitive, metaphorical names, like, ‘Mosaic’, “Fountain” or “Iris” are taken and trademark exceptions do not exist. 

But by exhausting creative exploration, you can uncover an adjacent or new idea that tells an even richer story. Sometimes a simple, metaphorical real word is still available;  

other times, a coined, ‘sticky’ term or more abstract name offers stronger ownership potential. 

With an estimated 360 million companies in the world, naming isn’t just a creative game. It’s also a numbers game. And arriving at an answer that is inspired, strategic and viable requires diligence, objectivity and a willingness to push past your comfort zone. 

3. Every name has varying degrees of legal risk—but not every issue is a deal breaker.  

Nearly every name carries some degree of risk. No name receives a complete “all clear,” so involving legal teams early helps define acceptable risk levels and shape exploration. What’s more, different legal teams may employ different legal strategies to pursue or secure a name, from acquiring a mark to petitioning for co-usage with another party.  

When Google launched Alphabet, it couldn’t secure  alphabet.com or the pure social handles, which were currently being used by other organizations with the same name, including a division of BMW. They proceeded anyway, because launching with the very clever www.abc.xyz, because it believed the name best expressed its story. All to say, legal baggage associated with your favorite names can be investigated and often worked around, as long as you have legal embedded in your process from the very beginning. 

4. Fast-paced M&A deadlines can work in favor of a successful naming outcome.  

The deadlines surrounding deal closings and brand launches can make naming feel daunting. We believe sticking to an objective process and clear naming brief enable teams to use time pressure constructively. Having less time often leads to more objective decisions, less room for emotion and bias, and faster alignment. When there is no time to second-guess or decide by consensus, teams often trust their guts and arrive at impactful answers. 

5. And finally, remember that a name is a powerful asset—but not the only asset. 

Although we always say your name is your most visible asset, it is not your only asset. This is especially important in M&A, where multiple parties unite around a broader, more aspirational value proposition. While the name can certainly signal part of this new experience, it cannot tell the complete story on its own. We help clients see their name in the context of other strategic levers, like the promise they make to their customers, their visual language, or the experiences they aim to create.