IncSub, incsub or Incsub???

OK, this is really doing my head in… I thought I’d got it with ‘IncSub’ (demonstrating the origins of the name) but it looks so crud :o( so am tempted to go back to the original ‘incsub’ but Guy Kawasaki says it’s dumb to use all lower-case as it disappears in reports / articles etc. so that’d make it ‘Incsub’… gah!

Whaddya reckon…

a. IncSub
b. incsub
c. Incsub
d. Whatever / Something else

Hey, I’m not avoiding work am I, you can vote for your favourite in this poll! (open for a week)

4 replies on “IncSub, incsub or Incsub???”

  1. subversion usually requires that one not draw too much attention to the covert nature of one’s operations and, so, I would maintain that the uncapitalized version of incsub belies a subtler, more humble nomiker for the community.

  2. Yeh I was tempted by just calling it after the blog… but had a few thoughts:

    1. It’s too long
    2. It doesn’t match the URL
    3. Anything with ‘subversion’ in it might not be immediately appealing in a business sense?

    I think I prefer the subtle version too but at the moment all the votes seem to be coming for IncSub… and you cannae ignore the people :)

    And Harold, not like you had to suffer much naming your consultancy ;o>

    Cheers, James

  3. James; actually I did go through a lengthy naming process, but my friend, who is a graphic artist (and designed the word mark) finally convinced me to stick with my name because it is unique. He recommended to just add “consulting” because it is descriptive & flexible. I still like your name better, because our corporatist world needs a lot more subversion :-)

Comments are closed.