ge and Conn

MES - Journal of

tion in Business HERMO

## HERMES

<!-- image -->

## Journal of Language and Communication in Business

<!-- image -->

László Kovács*

## 'Good' vs. 'Bad': An Empirical Analysis of the Brand Names of Coronavirus Vaccines

## Abstract

Brand  names  are  assets  in  marketing:  a  good  name  can  help  to  sell  products.  Although  research  has  made  several recommendations on how 'good' brand names should be created, the complex process is not easily adapted to every product category. Little  research  is  done  on  a  particular  product  category:  the  brand  names  of  vaccines.  This  paper contributes to vaccine brand names in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The theoretical part of the paper first describes the characteristics of 'good' and 'bad' brand names, and then the focus is narrowed down to the characteristics of drug brand names and to the processes that influenced the naming of coronavirus vaccines. In the empirical part of the paper, Hungarian students perform brand recognition, recall, and association tasks connected to vaccine brand names. It will be shown that the vaccines are known by their public brand names (e.g., Pfizer ) and not by their actual brand names (e.g., Comirnaty ). The rating of the brand names shows that public brand names are considered to be better than the actual brand names, while brand associations collected for the actual brand names show mixed results. In the last part of the paper, theoretical implications are discussed, and recommendations for pharmaceutical companies are formulated to show what steps these companies could take to overcome the impasse between public and actual brand names.

## Keywords

brand names; coronavirus; Covid; vaccine brand names; pharmaceutical brand names

## 1. Introduction

Brand names are part of our everyday life: we meet them on the streets, in an office, at home, or online; we may purchase products because their names appeal to us, and we use them as anchors in complex purchasing situations. As Kohli, LaBahn, and Thakor (2001, p. 453) state, brand names represent the most valuable assets a company can have. Burman et al. (2022) even define brands through brand names: 'A brand can be understood as the sum of all the perceptions that a brand name or a brand mark evokes […]'. Baumgarth (2008) emphasizes that brand names can be used for positioning.

Companies  are  aware  of  the  importance  of  brand  names:  they  invest  in  developing  and protecting new names (see Bugdahl, 2005; Kircher, 2019; Platen, 1997). Other companies misuse well-established names: they sell their products - legal or in a legal grey zone - under names that may be confounded with these well-known and sought-after names.

In the case of coronavirus vaccines, brand names are even more critical: they promote a product that  can  actually  save  lives.  The  names  must  persuade  primarily  health  specialists  and  public organizations to buy a vaccine, but secondly also private consumers to get vaccinated.

The creation and acceptance of coronavirus vaccine brand names happened under extraordinary circumstances: As we will see, at the time of official naming, the products already had names used by the public and media. A vaccine was known, for example, under the name Pfizer . However, these

*

László Kovács

Faculty of Social Sciences / Department of Business Communication and Marketing Eötvös Loránd University kovacs.laszlo@sek.elte.hu names  were  not  coined  by  the  companies  but  rather  by  the  mass  media,  which  continuously reported on the vaccine development process. This resulted in a dual naming: Although the vaccines had protected brand names (e.g., Comirnaty ), they were mostly known to the public by company names (e.g., Pfizer ).

The paper aims to show the context of vaccine brand names: first, it characterizes 'good' brand names,  then  it  gives  insights  into  branding  medicine  products  and  shows  how  the  names  of coronavirus vaccines were created. The empirical part of the paper analyzes to which extent the public accepted these names.

The topic and the results have both theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical part shows  that  brand  naming  is  not  controlled  by  a  company  in  every  case:  brand  names  can  be 'created'  and  coined  by  the  public.  In  this  context,  in  the  paper  brand  names  are  used  for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement.

## 2. Literature overview

## 2.1. Research in brand names

Literature on brand names is expanding: brand names are researched from marketing (see Bugdahl, 2005; Kircher, 2019; Langner & Esch, 2019; Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004), linguistic (see Kovács, 2019; Platen, 1997, Praninskas, 1968; Ronneberger-Sibold, 2004) or legal perspective (see Bently et al., 2008;  Shuy,  2002).  Marketing-oriented  brand  name  research  sees  brand  names  as  names  that facilitate  the  market  success  of  products  (see  Keller,  2013),  while  linguistic-oriented  research concentrates on brand names as linguistic  signs  (see  Kovács,  2019;  Ronneberger-Sibold,  2004). Finally,  the  legal  perspective  of  brand  names  is  centered  around  the  legal  protection  of  brand names (Bently et al., 2008).

Marketing-oriented  research  on  brand  names  seeks  to  answer  the  question  of  how  -  and whether - a given name can help sell products (Keller 2013). In this regard, brand names function as anchors: they provide support for consumer decisions. However, not only consumers, but also companies benefit from brands and brand names (Table 1).

| Advantages for companies                                                       | Advantages for consumers                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Brands enable differentiation and segmentation (e.g., mass - premium - luxury) | help with identification                          |
| justify higher prices                                                          | give information about the quality of the product |
| help secure market share                                                       | assure constant quality                           |
| help with customer loyalty                                                     | help to make purchase decisions                   |
| contribute to the company's value                                              | minimize risk                                     |
| names or other components of a brand can be legally protected                  | minimize search effort                            |
| facilitate the introduction of new products                                    | can express prestige and group affiliation        |

Table 1. Advantages of brands and brand names based on Gordon et al. (2016), Keller (2003), Keller (2019), Kotler et al. (2013), Meffert et al. (2002).

Linguistic-oriented research is neutral: it describes the characteristics of brand names. Linguistics research  on  brand  names  belongs  primarily  to  the  area  of  onomastics.  From  the  onomastic viewpoint, brand names belong to the category ergonyms (cf. Brdar & Brdar, 2023; ICOS 2021; Nübling et al. 2012). Sjöblom (2014) sees brand names as belonging to the category of commercial names, which is (partly) a hyponym of ergonyms.

Brand names can be researched in linguistics in many additional contexts: it is possible to analyze the meaning (Lerman, 2007), the sound symbolic effects (Klink, 2000, 2003; Shrum & Lowrey, 2007), or the origin of the brand names or describe brand naming trends (Bugdahl, 2005; Landa, 2006; Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004). The linguistic characteristics of brand names, however, are connected to their marketing context: the linguistic characteristics of brand names can help sell products.

## 2.2. 'Good' 'and bad' brand names

From a marketing perspective, brand names can be considered as 'good' or 'bad'. 'Good' and 'bad' brand names exist, however, only from a marketing point of view: 'good' brand names help to sell the product, while 'bad' names make it difficult or impossible to market goods (Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004).

From a linguistic view, brand names are neutral objects of research. Thus, 'good' and 'bad' are not  inherent  characteristics  of  the  names  but  the  result  of  an  analysis  from  a  very  particular perspective: that of marketing.

'Good' and 'bad' are also not general characteristics of brand names: a brand name can be 'good' for a given product at a given market and 'bad' for the same product in another market. The luxury car Rolls-Royce Silver Mist , for example, had to be renamed to Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow in Germany because the word Mist means in German 'dung', which - understandably - did not match the image of a luxury car (Platen, 1997). Thus, the same name can be 'good' or 'bad', depending on the market.

In marketing and brand literature, several authors tried to describe the characteristics of 'good' and 'bad' brand names. One of the early attempts to describe 'good' brand names was made by Robertson (1989, p. 69), who considered the following points:

1. The brand name should be a simple word.
2. The brand name should be a distinctive word.
3. The brand name should be a meaningful word.
4. The brand name should be a verbal or sound associate of the product class.
5. The brand name should elicit a mental image.
6. The brand name should be an emotional word.
7. The brand name should make use of the repetitive sounds generated by alliteration, assonance, consonance, rhyme, and rhythm.
8. The brand name should make use of morphemes.
9. The brand name should make use of phonemes.

One  and  a  half  decades  later,  Rivkin  &  Sutherland  (2004,  pp.  65-76)  formulated  similar recommendations for 'good' brand names, from which some are easily understandable (names should be short) while others ('pleases the ear in any language') are harder to interpret.

For 'good' brand names, Platen (1997) mentions the importance of connotations, while Keller (2013) emphasizes - among others - the importance of easy pronunciation and the relevance of differentiation through the names.

Kircher (2019, pp. 608-612) uses a shorter list and highlights that successful brand names must be unique, serious and memorable. She also emphasizes the importance of legal protection and stresses that the names should be suitable in the given linguistic and cultural context (cf. de la Cova 2021).

Literature also describes 'bad' brand names. 'Bad' names are hard to pronounce ( Coryphaeus Software ),  too  general  ( Beer ),  are  not  suitable  for  the  given  product  category  ( Hotpoint as  a refrigerator), bear negative associations ( French's Mustard ), are technical words ( eServer z 990 ), or are too long and chaotic ( BankAmerica Robert Stephens ) (Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004, pp. 78-84). In the case of French's Mustard , the negative associations are due to the anti-French sentiment in the United  States  in  the  early  2000s  (Rivkin  &  Sutherland,  2004).  These  negative  feelings  were transferred to the brand, despite the fact that it is a US brand and only the name of the founder was Robert Timothy French (Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004: 147). Although these characteristics of 'bad' brand names can be debatable, 'bad' names exist, however, when a brand name in a given language evokes associations that are not suitable for the product (Platen, 1997).

The following section narrows down the perspective of branding and brand naming to medicine, more precisely to pharmaceutical products.

## 2.3. Branding pharmaceutical products

Since only a few papers analyze vaccine brand names (see point 2.4), we consider it necessary to overview the branding process of a superior product category, thus we describe the characteristics of branding pharmaceutical products with an emphasis on drug brand names.

Brands and brand names are widely used in medicine: drugs with brand names are common today,  although  drugs  with  general  names  also  exist  (see  Ledan,  2020;  Moss,  2001;  Moss  & Schuiling, 2004; Park et al., 2021; Pires et al., 2016; for a comprehensive overview see Blackett & Robins, 2001, for a historical overview see Greene, 2011).

Brands  in  the  pharmaceutical  industry  facilitate  the  selling  of  products.  The  advantages  of branding in the pharmaceutical industry are the same as the advantages of branding products in other industries (cf. Table 1 above). Brands in the pharmaceutical industry:

1. build a relationship with the customer,
2. they enable competitive differentiation,
3. they can be used internationally and across different sectors,
4. they influence behavior and attitude,
5. can lead to consumer loyalty (Blackett, 2001, pp. 15-16).

Branding  in  the  pharmaceutical  industry  can  be  performed  on  three  different  levels:  we  can differentiate corporate brands (e.g., Astra, Sandoz, Pfizer ), therapy area brands (brands active on one  specific  therapy  area;  e.g., Glaxo,  Smithkline  Beecham ),  and  product  brands  (e.g., Prozac, Claritine )  (Moss,  2001: 28-29). From the three categories the first two bear, in most cases, the names of the producing - or the sales - company, while the third is a unique, protected name for a given product.

Since  brand  names of drugs can influence the perception of the characteristics of the drug, names must be carefully chosen. For example, drugs with more complex names are perceived as more hazardous  (Dohle  &  Siegrist,  2014),  and  drugs  with  voiced  consonants  (e.g.,  [b],  [d])  are perceived as more effective as drugs with voiceless consonants (e.g., [f], [s]) in their brand names (Park et al. 2021).

What are, thus, considered  as  characteristics  of  'good'  brand  names  in  the  pharmaceutical industry? The specific recommendations are in line with general recommendations to 'good' brand names.  According  to  Robins  (2001),  'good'  pharmaceutical  brand  names  must  be  legally protectable, have no negative connotations, and they should be:

- easy to pronounce,
- easy to write and read (to avoid prescription errors),
- memorable and attractive to the target audience(s),
- distinctive and differentiated from the competition (Robins, 2001, p. 157).

Despite the similarities to other product categories, when creating brand names for pharmaceutical products,  we  have  to  consider  several  peculiarities  of  pharmaceutical  brands,  like  the  target consumer groups and regulations.

Concerning target groups, pharmaceutical brand names can target two different consumer groups: on  one  side,  professionals  prescribing  medicaments,  and  on  the  other  side,  the  users  of  these medicaments (Robins, 2001). The two target groups are different:

1. The physicians prescribing or recommending medical products have extensive knowledge of how a given medicine - and its ingredients - works.
2. The consumers who buy and use the medical product have no such knowledge: They rely on the knowledge of the physician, they can be, however, - in the case of over-the-counter drugs - also influenced by advertisements (Catlett, 2001; Cooper, 2001).

As an example consider a brand name using morphemes of the active ingredient (e.g., Ibutop, IBU , or Ibuprofen ).  These  names  tell  both  groups  the  drug's  active  ingredient  (ibuprofen).  Consider, however,  the  brand  names Advil or Motrin .  In  the  case  of  these  drugs,  the  ingredient  is  not apparent: only experts know the active ingredients of these branded medicines, although the active ingredient is the same, ibuprofen.

Concerning regulations, the created names need to contemplate not only the product itself, the target  audience(s),  and  brand  names  of  the  competitors,  but  also  legal  recommendations  and regulations  connected  to  pharmaceutical  brand  names  (Cooper,  2001;  Robins,  2001).  These regulations are complex and may vary from market to market. One context is, however, obvious: drug  names  should  not  be  similar  to  other  drug  names  or  to  drug  names  with  other  active ingredients, and they should not include inactive ingredients in the name (Faure, 2018). The reason is,  that  similar  drug  names  may  confuse  consumers  -  or  even  physicians  -  which  can  result  in medication  errors  (see  Aronson,  2004;  Lambert  et  al . ,  2005).  For  the  same  reason,  misleading names or name elements connected to general drugs should also be avoided (Faure, 2018).

Creating brand names for drugs is not easy. The fact, that the focus of branding connected to drugs is often global adds more challenge to brand name creation (see Cooper, 2001). Researching possible names to find a suitable, 'good' name takes time: this why, in general, in the case of pharmaceutical products the marketing process is parallel to product development (Cooper 2001).

All these aspects increase the costs of the development of a brand name. Naming drugs can cost companies several hundred thousand dollars (see Collier, 2014; Faure, 2018), and pharmaceutical brands  are  presumably  the  most  research-  and  resource-intensive  brand  names  to  develop (Bugdahl, 2005). When naming a drug, not only is the name created and coined, but brand benefits and brand language are developed parallel with the product to achieve longevity (Cooper, 2001; Robins, 2001), adding to the costs of naming.

In  the  next  section,  we  narrow  the  focus  to  a  particular  group  of  pharmaceutical  products: vaccines, and we focus on the names of coronavirus vaccines.

## 2.4. Branding vaccines: Challenges and solutions

Little research has been done on vaccine brand names, although vaccines have been used since the end of the 18 th century (Plotkin 2014). We must assume that for vaccine brand names the same processes  and  considerations  apply  as  for  other  brand  names  in  the  pharmaceutical  industry (Davidovic, 2021).

Brand names for vaccines are common; however, unambiguous identification of vaccines - e.g., with international letter/number codes - is called for to avoid medication errors (D'Arrigo, 2017; Maurer,  2000).  Creating  'good'  brand  names  for  vaccines  is  paramount:  Well-chosen  names increase trust and the willingness to get vaccinated (Mushi et al., 2008).

In  2020, however, the vaccines developed against coronavirus were not branded: they were known to the public by the name of the company producing and/or developing them (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca ) (Davidovic, 2021). In the case of Pfizer , for example, the vaccine was widely known by the name of the company that was commercializing the vaccine ( Pfizer ) and less so by the name of the developing company ( BioNTech )  (Davidovic 2021). These names were not only occurring in the news, in traditional or social media; scientific papers also used them (e.g., Noor, 2021).

These  brand  names  connected  to  the  vaccines  are  not  official,  protected  brand  names  of vaccines; they are the names of the companies producing vaccines. They function, however, for the public as brand names: they identify and differentiate the vaccines. At this point, for the next parts of the paper, we need to introduce two terms: public brand name and actual brand name . The public  brand  name is  the  name  that  is  used  for  vaccines  by  the  public  (e.g.,  in  mass  media,  by governments,  in  social  media).  These  are  mostly  company  names  (e.g., Pfizer,  Moderna, AstraZeneca ). The actual brand name is the protected brand name of the vaccine, developed for branding purposes (e.g., Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria ).

The actual brand names of several vaccines were created by The Brand Institute, one of the leading  naming  companies  worldwide:  They  named Pfizer 's  vaccine Comirnaty,  Moderna 's Spikevax,  AstraZeneca 's Vaxzevria,  Novavax 's Nuvaxovid, and Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline 's Vidprevtyn (Bulik, 2022; Schwartz, 2022). These brand names had to meet several regulations (see European Medicines Agencies, 2014; in general, Robins, 2001).

According to Bulik (2022), these actual brand names of vaccines were generated through the following considerations:

- Comirnaty ( Pfizer and BioNTech ): co=refers to Covid; mirn=mRNA technology; com=community; ty=immunity;
- Spikevax ( Moderna ): spike=refers to the spikes of the virus + also is a term for a special attack move in volleyball; vax=vaccine;
- Vaxzevria ( AstraZeneca ): vax=vaccine; evri=for everyone;
- Nuvaxovid ( Novavax ): nuva=refers to the company name; vax=vaccine; ovid=Covid;
- Vidprevtyn ( Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline ): vid=Covid; prev=prevention; tyn=a closed syllable indicating strongness.

Although the names were in line with regulations (see Bulik, 2022; Schwartz, 2022), the acceptance of  the  names  among  the  public  was,  however,  at  least  ambiguous:  they  were  called  'goofy' (Campbell, 2021).

Davidovic  (2021)  describes,  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  branding  expert,  the  dynamics  and background that influenced the branding of the coronavirus vaccines. As a reason and result for not optimal branding the new vaccines, he points out that:

- time was short, and companies had to focus on trials and production, not on marketing.
- More vaccine variants may be needed to be developed, which implies future confusion in (new) names.
- It is and was not clear who is 'in charge' of the vaccines: research teams, marketing teams, PR teams, or the government, which also undertook marketing efforts.
- The customer is not clearly defined: are they the people who get vaccinated, or physicians or governments and health systems?
- Marketing limitations were due to regulations, at least in the US: the vaccines had only Emergency Use Authorization, which restricted marketing communication (Davidovic, 2021, pp. 105-108).

The  exact  date  of  the  naming  and  the  introduction  of  the  actual  brand  names  is  unclear.  The information, when the names were generated could be important, however. When the actual brand names were generated well before the vaccines appeared in the news, this would indicate a fault in marketing communications: it would mean that the names already existed, the companies were, however, unable to communicate these names. On the other hand, when the media used public brand names well before the actual brand names were created, it would mean that the public names for vaccines were already - publicly - coined at the time of the actual brand name creation. The second possibility implies that the actual names had to assert against names extensively used in worldwide mass media.

The name Comirnaty was already developed, but new at the end of 2020 (Bulik, 2020). The vaccines  of Pfizer , Moderna and AstraZeneca were  already  in  use  in  early  2021  (Fortner  & Schumacher, 2021). Since the exact date of the introduction of the actual brand names is not clear, an analysis of Google Trends (Google's search history) can reveal when these names first appeared in searches worldwide (Table 2).

Table 2. First searches for vaccine brand names according to Google Trends. Note: In the case of all names except for Comirnaty - sporadic searches to these names also happened before these dates, at least back in 2017.  In  the  case  of  company  names  the  trends  are  less  clear,  since  they  are  existing  pharmaceutical companies with several products and brands.

| Vaccine name   | First frequent searches for the names worldwide   | Company name               | First frequent searches for the names worldwide         |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Comirnaty      | 20-26. December 2020                              | Pfizer BioNTech            | 8-14. November 2020 8-14. November 2020                 |
| Spikevax       | 20-26. June 2021                                  | Moderna                    | no clear trend several frequent searches after May 2020 |
| Vaxzevria      | 28. March-03. April 2021                          | AstraZeneca                | 28 February-06 March 2021                               |
| Nuvaxovid      | 07-13. November 2021                              | Novavax                    | no clear trend                                          |
| Vidprevtyn     | 18-24. July 2021                                  | Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline | no clear trend                                          |

As  we  can  see  from  Google  Trends,  company  names  (public  brand  names)  were  searched  for frequently weeks or months before search for the actual brand name started. It is important to note,  however,  that  Google  Trends  do  not  provide  search  frequency  in  numbers  (how  many searches occurred for a given name), it indicates the trends only in points; the peak is in every case 100  points.  We  must  assume,  however,  that  the  public  brand  names  of  the  above-mentioned vaccines were - due to mass media - known worldwide earlier as actual brand names.

Some vaccines, however, were not used worldwide and were, therefore, less in the focus of worldwide media news. These vaccines were used only in a given - smaller or larger - region. In Hungary, for example, the Russian-made Sputnik V vaccine ( Sputnik ='fellow traveler', also the name of  the  first  human-made  satellites; V =Vaccine)  and  the  Chinese Sinovac vaccine  (= Sinopharm Vaccine;  Sino ='Chinese')  were  widely  used  in  early  2021.  The  Chinese  vaccine  was  referred  to mostly simply as the Sinopharm vaccine (cf. Kondorosy et al. 2023). In the further analysis, we focus, however, on the names of vaccines that were used worldwide because almost no information is available on the exact naming processes and naming contexts of the Sputnik and Sinovac vaccines.

As Davidovic (2021) pointed out, the brand name creation for the coronavirus vaccines was different from the name creation process common in the pharmaceutical industry. The question arises,  how  the  double  naming  process  (public  and  actual  brand  names)  influenced  consumer perception of these names and whether the actual brand names generated under extraordinary circumstances perform with consumers as expected?

In the next step, we analyze the actual brand names - recall, recognition, and associations from the consumer's point of view. We seek answers to the following questions:

- RQ1) Can consumers recall the actual brand names of vaccines?
- RQ2) How do consumers rate public and actual brand names?
- RQ3) What associations do actual vaccine brand names elicit?

## 3. Data and methods

As  we  see,  vaccine  names  were  developed  under  extraordinary  circumstances:  vaccine  names entering media were not created by marketing experts; experts only created names after vaccines were widely in media discussions and partly in use. To see how well-known the actual brand names of vaccines are and to answer the above research questions, an experiment was run in early 2022 in Hungary to test these brand names.

The  participants  were  107  Hungarian  undergraduate  business  students  (Eötvös  Loránd University, Campus Savaria) with an online questionnaire open between March and May 2022, using  Google  Forms.  The  first  questions  were  demographic  questions  and  questions  related  to coronavirus-related  news  consumption.  The  remaining  questions  were  connected  to  the  brand names of vaccines. All questions were asked in Hungarian.

61% of the participants were women, 39% were men, 81,3% were between 18-25 years old, and 12,1% between 26-35 years old. 99% of the participants were native Hungarian speakers, 91,5% had (at least basic) knowledge of English, and 60,7% had (at least basic) knowledge of German. Hungarian, being a Finno-Uralic language, is not related to Indo-European languages like English or German. The viewpoint of a non-Indo-European language is essential, however, since the vaccines were marketed worldwide; thus, the names must also be known to and accepted by not native speakers of Indo-European languages.

According to the answers concerning coronavirus-related news consumption, participants read news  connected  to  the  epidemic,  mostly  in  Hungarian  and  partly  in  English.  They  preferred Hungarian national news sites, official Hungarian (government) sites, and information from social media. They used international news sites and traditional Hungarian media (newspapers, television, radio) much less for collecting information, and they only seldom accessed traditional international media or special international sites dedicated to the pandemic (e.g., Worldometer, Healthdata).

The first question concerning the brand names of vaccines asked participants to recall vaccine brand names and is connected to RQ1. In the first question, we applied the method of Geissler (1917) - an open, brand name recalling test - and asked participants to name coronavirus-vaccine brand names. The method is valid for evoking brand names connected to a given product category (Fazio et al., 2000).

The second question was a brand name recognition test (in line with Schmitt et al. 1993), in which we asked the participants to state whether a given name is the name of a vaccine. The tested names  were  the  following: AstraZeneca,  Biontech,  Comirnaty,  CoronaVac,  Covaxin,  Janssen, Moderna, Nuvaxovid, Pfizer, Sinopharm, Spikevax, Sputnik V, Vaxzevria, and Vidprevtyn . From the tested  names Comirnaty,  CoronaVac,  Covaxin,  Nuvaxovid,  Spikevax,  Sputnik  V,  Vaxzevria ,  and Vidprevtyn are  vaccine  brand  names,  while  the  other  names  are  the  names  of  pharmaceutical companies. In the third question - connected to RQ2 - we asked the participants to rate these names on a five-point Likert scale (see Bosshard et al., 2016; Tavassoli, 2001).

In the last five questions - connected to RQ3 -, we asked participants to name any words that came to their mind when reading the brand name/word Comirnaty, Spikevax, Nuvaxovid, Vaxzevria, and Vidprevtyn (RQ3); thus, we collected brand associations. Collecting brand associations is an established method for evaluating and testing brand names (see Aaker, 1991; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Keller, 2013). With the help of brand associations, the brand's position in the mind can be analyzed: the words the brand name is connected to in the mind show not only the current position of the brand but also enable the identification of key brand communication elements (see Kovács, 2019; Kovács et al., 2022; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001).

We asked no questions - because of the sensitivity of data - concerning the vaccination of the participants; thus, we must rely on secondary data. Concerning the vaccines used in Hungary, the official government site states in early 2022 (time of data collection), that Hungary obtained from the EU over 10 million Pfizer-BioNTech , over 6,3 million AstraZeneca , almost 4 million Janssen , over 1,7 million Moderna and from not EU-sources 2,6 million Sinopharm and over 2 million Sputnik vaccines (koronavirus.gov, 2022a; note: the vaccine names are copied from the official website, only Sputnik is written in its Hungarian version ( Szputnyik ) on the site). On the 31 st of March, 6,402 million people were vaccinated in Hungary at least one time with one vaccine (koronavirus.gov, 2022b).

## 4. Results

In  the  first  question  connected  to  vaccines,  we  asked  students  to  name  Covid  vaccines  ('What coronavirus vaccine brands do you know? If you know some, please list them!'). No restrictions either on spelling or on the number of vaccines one can name - were given. Altogether 403 vaccine names were collected (average: 3.76 vaccine names per participant; Table 3).

| Named vaccines                  |   Number of mentions |
|---------------------------------|----------------------|
| Pfizer                          |                   96 |
| Moderna                         |                   72 |
| Szputnyik / Sputnik / Sputnik V |                   66 |
| Sinopharm                       |                   45 |
| Johnson &Johnson                |                   35 |
| Janssen                         |                   18 |

100

75

50

25

0

· vaccine name

AstraZeneca don't know / I am not sure not a vaccine name Biontech Moderna

| Pfizer BioNTech / BioNTech Pfizer   |   5 |
|-------------------------------------|-----|
| Sinovac                             |   2 |
| Covishield                          |   1 |
| Delta                               |   1 |
| Kínai (=Chinese)                    |   1 |
| Omikron                             |   1 |
| Orosz (=Russian)                    |   1 |
| Oxford AstraZeneca                  |   1 |
| Pfizer (Comirnaty)                  |   1 |
| Altogether                          | 403 |

Table 3. Number of mentions of Covid vaccines. The spelling variants/misspellings are standardized.

As we can see, by the recalling test, the companies producing vaccines / bringing vaccines to market are named most frequently. As we have seen, these are the public brand names used for vaccines in media. From the actual brand names of vaccines, Sputnik is the vaccine that was named most frequently  (vaccination  with Sputnik and Sinopharm started  in  Hungary  in  February  2021; koronavirus.gov 2021a; koronavirus.gov 2021b). As we can see, more complex names like Pfizer BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca were also recalled.

The next question was a brand name recognition test and asked the participants to identify coronavirus vaccine names ('Please indicate which of the following you think are the names of the coronavirus vaccines') (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Results to the question: 'Please indicate which of the following names you think are the names of coronavirus vaccines'.

<!-- image -->

As it can be seen, in the recognition test - although the actual vaccine brand names are recognized to some extent (e.g., 21,5% of the participants thought that Comirnaty was the name of a vaccine) - primarily public brand names are believed to be the vaccine names.

Nuvaxovid In the next question (Figure 3), we asked participants to rate brand names connected to vaccines on a five-point Likert scale ('How good do you think the following names related to coronavirus vaccines sound? 1 = very bad name; 5 = very good name; can't judge').

Figure 3. The rating of brand names connected to vaccines on a 1-5 scale, n=107.

<!-- image -->

As we can see, the sounding of actual brand names of vaccines is rated lower, while public brand names (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna ) are rated higher.

In the next step, we made a brand association experiment to test the words elicited by the brand name (see, e.g., Kovács, 2019): We asked the participants for the first idea that comes to their mind when hearing the actual vaccine names ( Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria, Nuvaxovid, Vidprevtyn ). The question was formulated as 'What words come to your mind when you read the following brand name/word?' There were no restrictions on how many words could be named (Table 4).

| Comirnaty                          |   Number of mentions |
|------------------------------------|----------------------|
| no idea                            |                   21 |
| Pfizer                             |                   13 |
| vaccine                            |                   11 |
| Covid                              |                    6 |
| community                          |                    5 |
| disease                            |                    3 |
| medicine                           |                    3 |
| foreign                            |                    3 |
| mRNS (=mRNA)                       |                    2 |
| west                               |                    2 |
| physician                          |                    2 |
| Russia / Russian / Slavic / Soviet |                    5 |
| Σ                                  |                  127 |

| Spikevax   |   Number of mentions |
|------------|----------------------|
| vaccine    |                   20 |

| Nuvaxovid         |   Number of mentions |
|-------------------|----------------------|
| Covid             |                   24 |
| no idea / unknown |                   14 |
| medicine          |                   10 |
| vaccine           |                    7 |
| new (cf. novum)   |                    7 |
| chemistry         |                    3 |
| physician         |                    2 |
| kindergarten      |                    2 |
| virus             |                    2 |
| Σ                 |                  117 |

| Vaxzevria   |   Number of mentions |
|-------------|----------------------|
| no idea     |                   19 |

Table  4.  Associations  (named  at  least  two  times)  for  the  vaccine  names Comirnaty,  Spikevax,  Vaxzevria, Nuvaxovid, Vidprevtyn . Σ = all associations, including single mentions. Associations clearly connected to the vaccines are in italics. All associations were in Hungarian; the associations were translated into English by the author.

| no idea       |   12 |
|---------------|------|
| spike         |   10 |
| resin/rosin   |    6 |
| wax           |    6 |
| hair wax      |    4 |
| Moderna       |    4 |
| dog           |    3 |
| spider        |    3 |
| Covid         |    2 |
| spike vaccine |    2 |
| spike protein |    2 |
| Σ             |  121 |

| Russian/ Polish / Serbian / Slavic   |   13 |
|--------------------------------------|------|
| wax                                  |    5 |
| medicine                             |    4 |
| AstraZeneca                          |    4 |
| resin/rosin                          |    3 |
| hair wax                             |    3 |
| virus                                |    2 |
| untrustworthy                        |    2 |
| foreign                              |    2 |
| Balkans                              |    2 |
| Σ                                    |  108 |

| Vidprevtyn                                        |   Number of mentions |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
| Russian / Russia                                  |                   29 |
| no idea                                           |                   25 |
| Slavic/Ukrainian/steppe/vodka/Polish/Putin/soviet |                    9 |
| vaccine                                           |                    7 |
| prevention                                        |                    7 |
| unpronounceable / complicated / misspelled        |                    6 |
| video                                             |                    3 |
| medicine                                          |                    2 |
| otter (=hun. vidra)                               |                    2 |
| Σ                                                 |                  110 |

We must point out, however, an essential context to the collected associations: at the time we asked for explicit associations for these names, the participants had already met these names in the previous questions, which may have influenced their answers.

## 5. Discussion

## 5.1. Recall, rating, and mental images

To the first research question - RQ1: Can consumers recall the actual brand names of vaccines? we can answer that the actual brand names could not be recalled by the participants. The same is true for the Chinese Sinopharm vaccine: as we mentioned earlier, the official name of the vaccine is Sinovac , although mass media and the government called it Sinopharm . In the case of Sputnik , the actual brand name and public brand name are the same.

We have no evidence of how often these names occurred in mass or social media in 2022 (date of data collection). Throughout 2021, however, an experiment used the method of social media listening  in  Hungarian  social  media  to  analyze  social  talk  connected  to  coronavirus  vaccines (Kondorosy et al., 2023). Using the social listening tool SentiOne, they showed that the brand name Pfizer dominated social media, followed by AstraZeneca. Moderna or Sinopharm came in third place of mentions, depending on the month of the year, and Sputnik was in 5 th place. From June 2021 social media mentions of vaccine names decreased significantly. We must note, however, that the research did not look for the actual brand names. These results are somewhat different from our naming experiment, although in both cases, the name Pfizer dominated. Differences are due to the used method (social media listening vs. free association) and to the date of the data collection (2021 vs. spring 2022).

To the second research question - RQ2: How do consumers rate actual and public brand names? - the answer is that actual brand names are rated more unfavorable than public ones. These ratings must not mean that the actual brand names are objectively 'bad': the rating may well be connected to the familiarity of the name, meaning that from media familiar names are rated higher, while unfamiliar  names  are  rated  lower.  Although  it  is  proven  that  brand  knowledge,  familiarity  and product characteristics may influence brand perception (cf. Breneiser & Allen, 2010; Rangaswamy, Burke & Oliva, 1993), we must note that connected to vaccines, no brand experience exists (e.g., previous use, taste, packaging, advertisements) which can be analyzed.

To answer the 3 rd research question - RQ3: What associations do actual vaccine brand names elicit? -, we have to take a closer look at the collected associations.

As we can see from the results, in the case of Comirnaty, Nuvavoxid , and Spikevax - if we include the word spike -, the elements of the brand names seem to be working since most associations are related to Covid, vaccines, or medicine. The names Vaxzevria and Vidprevtyn seem to have failed as vaccine brand names: both are most strongly connected to some Slavic languages and not to the pandemic.

We hypothesize that the morphemes used for brand name creation are only partly transparent to the participants. Comirnaty succeeds in eliciting Covid , the word community , and the reference to mRNA . From the collected associations, it seems that the morpheme ovid ( Nuvaxovid ) connects the name to Covid, while vid ( Vidprevtyn) does not. Spike connects the names to spikes - it is not clear, however, whether participants are aware that spikes are connected to the coronavirus. The morpheme prev elicited prevention, while evri failed to elicit everyone. The morpheme vax seems to have failed: it connects the names to wax and not to vaccines, both in the case of Spikevax and Vaxzevria . Since, however, participants were not explicitly asked for this information, we can only assume the processes that lead to the associations.

## 5.2. Vaccine brand names: 'good' or 'bad'?

In the case of coronavirus vaccines, the branding process was a global one since vaccines were (and are) used and accessible in most countries of the world. At the time when the actual brand names were created and coined, the products were talked about in mass media, and they were partly already in use or marketed. Therefore, as already stated, the naming process was influenced by several  brand-related,  product-related,  and  situation-related  factors  (Davidovic,  2021)  and  was overlayed by the already established and in mass and social media communicated, partly from the society and media invented and coined public brand names (e.g., Pfizer ). As pointed out, in the case of medicine brands - drugs - this is rather an uncommon situation.

As empirical results show, actual brand names for vaccines could be recalled in just a few cases, which implies that the names were a) not known to the participants or b) they could not remember those names. In any case, the recall of the names failed - instead, the public brand name (=the name of the company marketing the vaccines) was named, apart from Sputnik .

This result is in line with Davidovic (2021), who established that vaccines are known by company names and highlighted the different marketing strategies of the Sputnik vaccine. He points out that the Sputnik vaccine used a traditional marketing approach with a brand name, a logo, and a tagline and that the branding of Sputnik V and Sinovac can be considered more appropriate since these vaccine brand names are distinctive.

Comparing the actual brand names of coronavirus vaccines ( Comirnaty, Nuvaxovid, Spikevax, Vaxzevria, Vidprevtyn ) with the previously mentioned list considering the characteristics of 'good' brand  names,  we  must  note  that  most  of  the  recommendations  for  'good'  names  are  not characteristic for the names of vaccines.

Concerning the recommendations for general brand names of Robertson (1989), the names are not simple; they are, however, distinctive, they are partly meaningful, they are not 'verbal or sound associate of the product class', they elicit only partly the suggested mental images, they are less emotional and do not make use of repetitive sounds. Concerning the suggestions for brand names to make use of morphemes and phonemes, they fulfill these requirements - as does any other brand name.

Compared to the recommendations of Kircher (2019), the names are unique; they sound serious, but they are less memorable (see recall test). Legal protection is ensured, but their suitability for the given linguistic and cultural context and their fitness to be used for positioning are at least questionable.

Compared to the earlier recommendations for pharmaceutical names of Robins (2001, p. 157), we can conclude from the results that none of the names meets the first three of the criteria: they are  not  easy  to  pronounceable,  nor  are  they  easy  to  write  and  read,  and  they  are  also  not memorable and attractive. They also bear associations that are not connected to brand names. However, they can all be seen as distinctive, differentiated from competitors, and protectable.

On the other side, we can see that market shares and share prices of the companies producing and selling vaccines increased and that the vaccines are sold several billion times, generating sales in billions (see Erman & Mishra, 2021; Mishra, 2022). However, we must emphasize that these sales numbers are connected to the pandemic; thus, we cannot judge how sales numbers would have been positively or negatively influenced by the public or actual brand names of the Covid vaccines. Are thus the brand names of vaccines 'good' or 'bad'?

## 5.3. General discussion

One common problem with 'good' and 'bad' names is that the decision, whether the name is 'good' or 'bad', happens mostly after the market success of the name is known; thus, market success is inherent in rating names (Kovács, 2019). It means that there is no analysis of, e.g., all names filed as trademarks: merely the names are analyzed (and partly categorized as 'good' or 'bad') that are on the market, implying that market performance may also be included in the analysis. Name, product, and market information are all present at the same time, leading to a brand name evaluation analysis ex post facto, resulting in judging the names after the performance of the name (and the product behind the name) is known. We do not know, however, whether a given product could have had better market shares with another brand name.

As we see, 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms according to brand names. Therefore, a name can seldom be called 'good' or 'bad' in and of itself. When deciding whether a brand name is 'good' or 'bad', we must evaluate the names for a specific product, in a specific linguistic context, in a specific market, and at a specific time (Kovács, 2019; Kovács, 2022). Thus, brand names are not 'good' or 'bad': they may be, for example, evaluated as 'good' in a given market for a given product category but considered as 'bad' in another market for another product category.

The relative characteristics of 'good' and 'bad' brand names implies that products with 'bad' names can succeed and those with 'good' ones can fail on the market (Kovács, 2019). Seeing the considerations connected to 'bad' brand names, brand names such as Fat Bastard for  wine or Rubik's cube for a puzzle are rather 'bad' brand names: the first one is not suitable for the product category, the last one is hard to pronounce. Market data contradicts, however, these assumptions: Fat Bastard was the best-selling French wine in the US for years (Grimes, 2011), while Rubik's cube is, after 40 years, still a cult object: millions are sold every year (Rubiks, 2022), it inspired design objects, it is part of the popular culture and lead even to the folk art rubikcubism.

In the case of Covid vaccines, media coverage, public brand names - and partly market share and market success of the products - existed before the actual brand names were created and/or introduced.  This  process  created  an  unusual  situation:  the  products  were  successful  and  were known by their public brand name used by society (e.g., Pfizer ). These are known and presumably 'good' names (compare Table 1, Figure 2, public brand names). On the other hand, the actual, later invented brand names are not or less known, and they seem not to fulfill the requirements of 'good' names (compare Figure 1 and 2, actual brand names). Under these circumstances, it is not possible to decide whether the actual brand names are 'good' or 'bad'. Although they may be seemingly considered as 'bad', this seems, however, not to influence product selling because the products are good and because also a - 'good'? - public brand name for the same products exists. That actual brand names are less known to the public may be influenced also by the fact that it is almost impossible to introduce and coin a 'new' vaccine brand name when the same products already have a public brand name, which names resonates through worldwide mass and social media.

Another  context,  however,  must  not  be  lost  sight  of:  branding  and  branding  strategy  of coronavirus vaccines was presumed to be an important factor in getting vaccinated (Evans &French, 2021),  and  it  was  found  that  the  (presumably  public)  brand  name  of  vaccines  influenced  the willingness  to  get  vaccination  (Pedroso  et  al.,  2022).  Thus,  public  brand  names  seem  to  have worked.

The above-described contexts lead us to two theoretical considerations. The first is connected to brand names. Sjöblom (2016, p. 454), in a widely accepted definition, describes a brand name as 'a widely known, financially valuable name, which includes an image of the surplus value offered by the product'. In the case of coronavirus vaccines, two brand names exist parallel: a public brand name, which is not protected and is the name of the producing/researching company, and an actual brand name, which is connected only to the vaccines. According to Sjöblom's definition, both names are brand names, which means that public brand names can exist and function as brand names and help sell products.

The second consideration is connected to the emergence of the public and actual brand names of vaccines. The case of coronavirus vaccine brand names shows that a dual process is possible: for the same product, a company-driven (actual brand name) and a company-independent (public) brand name creation can exist parallel, and despite the knowledge and resources put into the actual brand names, the public brand name can prevail.

## 6. Practical implications

Vaccines seem to remain with us for a long time: the question is, how will the pharmaceutical companies market these vaccines?

One possibility is to try to market the vaccines with the actual brand names and establish a connection  between  the  public  brand  name  and  the  actual  brand  name  (e.g.,  explicitly communicating that the name of the Pfizer vaccine is actually Comirnaty ). In this case, the process can be seen partly as a brand name change, with all the benefits and caveats of such a change (see Hamer, 2008).

An alternative is to use the already established public brand name for the vaccine (e.g., Pfizer ) in communication. This decision can lead, however, to misunderstandings: when consumers believe Pfizer to be a vaccine name, other medicaments of the company may be less sought.

A third  option  is  to  differentiate  and  go  both  ways:  while  communicating  to  the  public,  the company could use the public brand name, and then in context with professionals and specialists, they could use the actual brand name.

A fourth option would be to create new names for vaccines that are better fit for the naming purpose. This step is again research-intensive and would include a brand name change (see Hamer, 2008).

By  deciding  on  one  of  these  approaches,  the  companies  need  to  establish  a  clear  branding procedure around the answers to the following questions:

1. Who is the actual target group of the vaccines? The target group of the vaccines can be considered  as  threefold:  a)  the  public  (=people  getting  vaccinated),  b)  the  physicians (=people actually vaccinating and recommending vaccines), or c) governments and health system authorities (=authorities deciding on which vaccines should be available in the given country)? The best strategy could be the third: using the already coined public brand names while communicating to the public and using the actual brand names with professionals and governments.
2. Do the companies want to be actively involved in branding? It is uncommon to pass on the branding initiative to the public; as we see, however, it happened in the case of the brand names of vaccines. It is questionable whether the initiative could be transferred back to the companies; they can try, however, at least to some extent, to steer which name is used. The most promising would be to use both names in communication.
3. What marketing efforts (budget, activities, etc.) are needed to try to change the already established  public  brand  names?  Creating  and  coining  brand  names  is  a  lengthy  and expensive process. Changing the vaccine brand names on a worldwide market, where the public brand names are already coined, would require a significant investment and highly targeted communication.
4. What are the benefits and caveats for the use of public brand names and actual brand names for  vaccines?  As  stated  above,  both  names  can  be  used:  the  use  of  public  brand  names connects the company name to the vaccines, which could lead to misunderstandings. On the other hand, the actual brand names do not seem to resonate with the public.
5. Is it beneficial for the company that the public uses the company name for a vaccine? Again, the company has to decide on its strategy. As stated, connecting the company name to the vaccines can lead to misunderstandings. On the other hand, the company names were - and are  -  frequently  mentioned  in  media,  connected  to  a  positive  image  due  to  saving  lives during the pandemic.
6. Do the actual brand names need to be communicated to the public? Branding without brand names is hardly possible, although other branding elements than brand names - like slogans or logos - are also effective. In the case of consumer products like food or fashion, success is connected  to a  communicated  brand  name  and  effective,  owner-led  marketing communications (cf. Camiciottoli 2018). In the case of vaccines, however, the decision about which vaccine we use is just partly connected to the brand name: it depends on the available vaccines  and  is  also  connected  to  the  information  about  the  efficiency  of  the  vaccine

- communicated  through  media.  And  we  must  remember  that  the  vaccines  are  already branded - by the public brand name, which resonates with the media and the public.
7. Are the actual brand names the best names possible for the vaccines, or is it useful to develop new  brand  names?  'Good'  brand  names  help  sell  products.  As  we  have  seen  from  the results, the actual brand names are less corresponding to the characteristics of 'good' brand names. We also pointed out that the acceptance of the names is at least questionable. Thus, the creation of new names would be recommendable when the brand owners wish to coin the names to the public.

For the time being, it seems that the brand names of vaccines and the use of these names are less influenced by the companies themselves, much more, however, by all the other actors: by the public, and by mass and social media, by governments and to some extent by the specialists using and recommending the vaccines.

Companies need to decide - in a short time - on their respective strategies for vaccine brand names, also bearing in mind that brand names are actual anchors that influence decisions about getting vaccinated (see Evans & French, 2021; Pedroso et al., 2022; also Wänke et al., 2007).

## 7. Limitations and further research

The  present  study  has  limitations:  The  empirical  study  was  conducted  with  native  Hungarian speakers,  who  may  evaluate  brand  names  differently  from  native  speakers  of  Indo-European languages. Since, however, the target group of vaccines is not limited to speakers of Indo-European languages, the chosen target group is valid for researching names.

The second limitation is connected to the fact, that the students were business students. The fact is important because the students - connected to their study subject - have marketing and to a lesser extent - branding knowledge, and they are aware of the importance of brand names. Although the field of study may influence brand knowledge in a given product category (cf. Alimen &  Guldem,  2010)  and  may  influence  associations  (cf.  Kovács,  2013),  we  do  not  know  -  and  in retrospect, we cannot empirically prove - that general marketing knowledge influenced vaccine brand name knowledge in early 2022.

The  third  limitation  of  the  empirical  study  is  due  to  the  data  collection:  although  the questionnaire was designed carefully, it is not possible to create a questionnaire evaluating brand names  in  different  contexts  without  actually  naming  the  brands  to  evaluate.  Thus,  every questionnaire  asking  more  than  one  question  connected  to  a  brand  name  may  influence  the perception of the name.

Future  research  directions  arise  from  the  limitations:  to  evaluate  vaccine  brand  names,  in subsequent research, native speakers of other languages should also evaluate vaccine brand names in  a  research  design,  where  from  all  participants  only  one  question  (e.g.,  name  vaccines;  rate vaccine names; mention associations to brand names) regarding vaccine brand names is asked. To achieve a more detailed picture of the topic, future research participants should be divided into three groups - participants with marketing/branding knowledge, participants with knowledge in medicine, and laymen in both fields - in order to see how specific knowledge influences the brand name recall and the brand associations of vaccine brand names.

## 8. Conclusion

Naming products - especially medical products - is a time- and resource-consuming task. However, the efforts are justified: good names can help sell products and can - in the case of vaccines - help save lives.

It has been shown that the name creation for coronavirus vaccines was a quick and uncommon process: the product was already in the market under a public brand name when the actual brand names themselves were introduced. Thus, the actual brand names were overshadowed by the public and widely used brand names of the vaccines. This double effect can also be grabbed by empirical data: in a recall test, public brand names were recalled as brand names of vaccines.

The names of vaccines show that both the brand name and the product are important: without the  corresponding  product,  the  name  cannot  work;  and  on  the  contrary,  a  good  product  can become successful even with a supposedly 'bad' - or from the public invented - name (see Rivkin & Sutherland, 2004; Usunier & Shaner, 2002).

Empirical results and resulting considerations suggest that pharmaceutical companies are well advised to rethink their brand naming strategy for vaccines since - as we see now - vaccines and their names seem to remain with us for years to come.

## References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.

Alimen, N., & Guldem Cerit, A. (2010). Dimensions of brand knowledge. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23 (4), 538-558.

Aronson, J. K. (2004). Medication errors resulting from the confusion of drug names. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 3 (3), 167-172.

Baumgarth, C. (2008). Markenpolitik . 3. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Bently, L. et al. (2008) Trade Marks and Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Blackett, T. (2001). Branding and its potential within the pharmaceutical industry. In T. Blackett & R. Robins (eds.) Brand Medicine. The Role of Branding in the Pharmaceutical Industry (pp. 9-26). Houndmills: Palgrave.

Blackett, T. & Robins, R. (eds.) (2001). Brand Medicine. The Role of Branding in the Pharmaceutical Industry . Houndmills: Palgrave.

Bosshard, S.  S.  et  al.  (2016).  Established  liked  versus  disliked  brands:  Brain  activity,  implicit  associations  and  explicit responses. Cogent Psychology, 3 (1), 1176691.

Brdar-Szabó, R. & Brdar, M. (2023). Figuratively used product names: From ergonyms to eponyms and paragons. Lingua, 290 , 103552.

Breneiser, J. E. & Allen, S. N. 2010. Taste Preference for Brand Name versus Store Brand Sodas. North American Journal of Psychology , 13 (2), 281-290.

Bugdahl, V. (2005). Erfolgsfaktor Markenname. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Bulik, B. S. (2020). The inside story behind Pfizer and BioNTech's new vaccine brand name, Comirnaty [online].

https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/pfizer-biontech-select-comirnaty-as-brand-name-for-covid-19-vaccine (accessed 14 November 2022).

- Bulik, B. S. (2022). Name that vaccine: From Comirnaty to Spikevax to Nuvaxovid, Covid-19 shots' brand names remain little-known [online].

https://endpts.com/name-that-vaccine-from-comirnaty-to-spikevax-to-nuvaxovid-covid-19-shots-brand-namesremain-little-known/ (accessed 24 June 2022).

Burmann, C. et al. (2022). Marke [online].

https://www.wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/marke-36974/version-260421 (accessed 11 April 2022).

- Camiciottoli,  B.  C.  (2018).  The  Nuances  of  Brand  Personality:  A  Corpus-assisted  Linguistic  Analysis  of  Web-based Communications of Fashion Brands. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 57 , 141-159.

Campbell, C. (2021). The Pfizer vaccine will be officially called Comirnaty, for some reason [online].

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2021/8/23/22637955/spikevax-moderna-comirnaty-pfizer-fda-approval-names (accessed 24 June 2022).

- Catlett, D. (2001). Public relations and its role in pharmaceutical brand building In T. Blackett & R. Robins (eds.) Brand Medicine. The Role of Branding in the Pharmaceutical Industry (pp. 130-140). Houndmills: Palgrave.

Collier, R. (2014) The art and science of naming drugs. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186 (14), 1053. DOI:

- Cooper,  S.  (2001).  Clinical  development  and  branding.  In  T.  Blackett  &  R.  Robins  (eds.) Brand Medicine.  The  Role  of Branding in the Pharmaceutical Industry (pp. 143-150). Houndmills: Palgrave.
- D'Arrigo, T. (2017). Vaccine abbreviations and acronyms can lead to errors. Pharmacy Today, 23 (5), 18.
- Davidovic,  D.  (2021).  Branding  COVID  vaccines:  A  nightmarish  journey  for  branding  practitioners? Journal  of  Brand Strategy, 10 (2), 102-108.
- de la Cova, E. (2021). Language and Brand: Problems for Localization. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business , 61 , 63-75.
- Dohle, S. & Siegrist, M. (2014). Fluency of pharmaceutical drug names predicts perceived hazardousness, assumed side effects and willingness to buy. Journal of Health Psychology, 19 (10), 1241-1249.
- Erman, M. and Mishra, M. (2021). Pfizer expects 2021, 2022 COVID-19 vaccine sales to total at least $65 bln [online]. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-raises-covid-19-vaccine-sales-forecast-36-

billion-2021-11-02/ (accessed 11 July 2022).

- European Medicines Agencies (2014). Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure [online].

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/guideline-acceptability-names-

human-medicinal-products-processed-through-centralised-procedure\_en.pdf (accessed 11 December 2022).

- Evans, W. D., & French, J. (2021). Demand Creation for COVID-19 Vaccination: Overcoming Vaccine Hesitancy through Social Marketing. Vaccines, 9 (4), 319.
- Faure, P. (2018). Natesto®. What Else? New Trends in Drug Naming. Names, 66 (2), 65-74.
- Fazio, R. H. et al. (2000). Measuring Associative Strength: Category Item Associations and Their Activation from Memory. Political Psychology, 21 (1), 7-25.
- Fortner,  A.  &  Schumacher,  D.  (2021).  First  COVID-19  Vaccines  Receiving  the  US  FDA  and  EMA  Emergency  Use Authorization. Discoveries, 9 (1), e122.
- Franzen, G. & Bouwman, M. (2001). The Mental World of Brands. Henley-on-Thames: World Advertising Research Center.
- Geissler, L. R. (1917). Association - reactions applied to ideas of commercial brands of familiar articles . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 (3), 275-290.
- Gordon, B. S. et al. (2016). The Development of Brand Association Measures in Multiple Product Categories: New Findings and Implications for Goods and Service Brands. International Journal of Business Administration, 7 (3), 140-152.
- Greene, J. A. (2011). What's in a Name? Generics and the Persistence of the Pharmaceutical Brand in American Medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 66 (4), 468-506.
- Grimes, W. (2011). With Rude Names, Wine Stops Minding Its Manners [online]. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/dining/with-rude-names-wine-stops-minding-its-manners.html  (accessed  07

May 2018).

Hamer, H. H. (2008). Brandnamechange . Göttingen: BusinessVillage.

ICOS List of Key Onomastic Terms (2021).

https://icosweb.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ICOS-Terms-en.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).

- Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge . Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600
- Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management . Harlow: Pearson.

Keller, K. L. (2019). Strategic Brand Management . Harlow: Pearson.

- Kircher,  S.  (2019).  Die  Entwicklung  von  Markennamen.  In  F.-R.  Esch  (Hrsg.) Handbuch Markenführung (pp.  605-622). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating Brand Names with Meaning: The Use of Sound Symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11 (1), 5-20.

- Klink,  R.  R.  (2003).  Creating  Meaningful  Brands:  The  Relationship  Between  Brand  Name  and  Brand  Mark. Marketing Letters, 14 (3), 143-157.

Kohli,  C.  et  al.  (2001).  Prozeß  der  Namensgebung.  In  F.-R.  Esch,  (Hrsg.) Moderne  Markenführung (pp.  451-474). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Kondorosy  Cs. et al. (2023). Oltásnarratívák. A Covid-vakcinákkal kapcsolatos lakossági attitűdök elemzése  a közösségimédia-figyelés módszerével. Médiakutató, 24 (4), 49-62.

koronavirus.gov. 2021a. Megkezdődött az oltás az orosz vakcinával is 2021. [online].

https://koronavirus.gov.hu/cikkek/megkezdodott-az-oltas-az-orosz-vakcinaval (accessed 11 December 2022).

koronavirus.gov. 2021b. A kínai vakcinával is elkezdődik az oltás - Mit kell tudni a Sinopharm-vakcináról? [online].

https://koronavirus.gov.hu/cikkek/kinai-vakcinaval-elkezdodik-az-oltas-mit-kell-tudni-sinopharm-vakcinarol (accessed 11 December 2022)

koronavirus.gov. 2022a. Magyarországra érkezett vakcinák típusa és mennyisége 2022. [online].

https://koronavirus.gov.hu/cikkek/magyarorszagra-erkezett-vakcinak-tipusa-es-mennyisege-27 (accessed 11 December 2022)

koronavirus.gov. 2022b. 6 millió 402 ezer a beoltott, 2654 az új fertőzött és elhunyt 40 beteg [online].

https://koronavirus.gov.hu/cikkek/6-millio-402-ezer-beoltott-2654-az-uj-fertozott-es-elhunyt-40-beteg (accessed 11 December 2022)

Kotler, P. et al. (2013). Principles of Marketing : 4th European Edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Kovács L. (2013). Fogalmi rendszerek és lexikai hálózatok a mentális lexikonban. Budapest: Tinta.

Kovács L. (2019). Márka és márkanév . Budapest: Tinta.

Kovács L. (2022). Márkanevek: a márkakukatás és a nyelvtudomány metszéspontjában Magyar Nyelvőr, 146 (1), 60-70.

Kovács  L.  et  al.  (2022).  Brands,  networks,  communities:  How  brand  names  are  wired  in  the  mind. PLoS  ONE,  17 (8), e0273192.

Lambertet  et  al.  (2005).  Designing  Safe  Drug  Names. Drug-Safety  28 ,  495-512.  https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018200528060-00003

Landa, R. (2006). Designing Brand Experiences . New York: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Langner,  T.  &  Esch,  F.-R.  (2019).  Branding  als  Grundlage  zum  Markenaufbau.  In  F.-R.  Esch  (Hrsg.) Handbuch Markenführung (pp. 587-604). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Ledan, S. (2020). Discussing Brand Versus Generic Medications. US Pharmacist, 45 (6), 30-32.

Lerman,  D.  B.  (2007).  Phonology,  Morphology,  and  Semantics:  Towards  a  Fuller  Conceptualization  of  Brand  Name Meaning. In T. M. Lowrey (ed.) Psycholinguistic Phenomena in Marketing Communications (pp.  79-99).  MahwahLondon: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maurer, W. (2000). Vaccine nomenclature: the three-letter code. Vaccine, 18 (15), 1539-1542.

Meffert, H. et al. (2002). Stellenwert und Gegenstand des Markenmanagement. In H. Meffert, C. Burmann & M. Koers (Hrsg.) Markenmanagement (pp. 3-15). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Mishra, M. (2022). Moderna sees higher COVID vaccine sales later this year [online].

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-keeps-full-year-covid-vaccine-sales-viewunchanged-2022-05-04/ (accessed 11 July 2022).

- Moss, G. (2001). Pharmaceutical Brands: Do they Really Exist? Journal  of  Medical  Marketing:  Device,  Diagnostic  and Pharmaceutical Marketing, 2(1), 23-32.
- Moss, G. & Schuiling, I. (2004). A Brand Logic for Pharma?: A Possible Strategy Based on FMCG Experience. Journal of Medical Marketing: Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing, 4 (1), 55-62.

Mushi, A. K. et al. (2008). Development of behaviour change communication strategy for a vaccination-linked malaria control tool in southern Tanzania. Malaria Journal, 7 (1), 191.

Noor, R. (2021). Developmental Status of the Potential Vaccines for the Mitigation of the COVID-19 Pandemic and a Focus on the Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA Vaccines. Current Clinical Microbiology Reports, 8, 178-185.

Nübling, D. et al. (2012). Namen. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.

Park, J. et al. (2021). A sound brand name: The role of voiced consonants in pharmaceutical branding. Food Quality and Preference, 90 : 104104.

Pedroso, P. et al.  (2022).  COVID-19  Vaccine  Hesitancy  among  Students. ISSRA Journal of Arts,  Humanities and Social Studies, 1 (3), 18-27.

Pires,  C.  et  al.  (2016).  Evaluation  of  brand  names  of  medicines:  linguistic  and  format  issues. International  Journal  of Pharmacy Practice, 25 (3), 231-237.

Platen, C. (1997). 'Ökonymie': zur Produktnamen-Linguistik im Europäischen Binnenmarkt. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Plotkin, S. (2014). History of vaccination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (34), 12283-12287.

Praninskas, J. (1968). Trade name creation: processes and patterns. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.

Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. R., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Brand equity and the extendibility of brand names. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (1), 61-75.

Rivkin, S. & Sutherland, F. (2004). The Making of a Name. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.

Robertson, K. (1989). Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (4), 61-71.

Robins, R. (2001). Pharmaceutical brand name development. In T. Blackett & R. Robins (eds.) Brand Medicine. The Role of Branding in the Pharmaceutical Industry (pp. 151-162). Houndmills: Palgrave.

Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2004). Warennamen. In A. Brendler & S. Brendler (Hrsg.) Namenarten und ihre Erforschung: ein Lehrbuch für das Studium der Onomastik (pp. 557-603). Hamburg: Baar.

Rubiks 2022. [online]

https://rubiks.com/en-US/ (accessed 06 November 2022).

- Schmitt, B. H. et al. (1993). Memory for print ads: Understanding relations among brand name, copy, and picture. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80075-7
- Schwartz, F. (2022) What Covid-19 Vaccine Did You Get? You Probably Don't Know Its Name. The Wall Street Journal [online].

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-covid-19-vaccine-did-you-get-you-probably-dont-know-its-name-11641753723 (accessed 09 July 2022).

- Shrum, L. J. & Lowrey, T. M. (2007). Sounds Convey Meaning: The Implications of Phonetic Symbolism for Brand Name Construction. In T. M. Lowrey (ed.) Psycholinguistic Phenomena in Marketing Communications (pp. 39-58). MahwahLondon: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shuy, R. (2002). Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes . Houndmills: Palgrave.

- Sjöblom, P. (2014). Commercial names and the unestablished terminology. In J. Tort i Donada & M. Montagut i Montagut (eds.) Els  noms  en  la  vida  quotidiana.  Actes  del  XXIV  Congrés  Internacional  d'ICOS  sobre  Ciències  Onomàstiques. Names in Daily Life. Proceedings of the XXIV ICOS International Congress of Onomastic Sciences (pp. 92-98). Barcelon: Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Cultura.
- Sjöblom, P. (2016). Commercial names. In Hough, C. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming (453-465). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Tavassoli,  N.  T.  (2001).  Color  memory  and  evaluations  for  alphabetical  and  logographic  brand  names. Journal  of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7 (2), 104-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.7.2.104
- Usunier, J.-C. & Shaner, J. (2002). Using linguistics for creating better international brand names. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8 (4), 211-228.

Wänke, M. et al. (2007). Brand name influence on brand perception. Psychology and Marketing, 24 (1), 1-24.