Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3152Re: Limited a limiting name?

Expand Messages
  • kezia_jauron
    Jan 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      For what it's worth, I agree with you, Ned. The implication is that
      the company is immature or fly-by-night.

      If a client is an Ltd. (really an LLC or LLP, generally) versus a
      Corp. or Inc., I advise them to drop the term from their press
      materials unless there's a legality involved.

      But Brits and wannabe Brits don't always share that opinion - for
      this I blame Johnny Lydon and his apres-Pistols band Public Image
      Ltd.




      --- In prbytes@yahoogroups.com, Ned Barnett <ned@b...> wrote:
      >
      > Does anybody here share (or disagree) with my thought
      that "Limited" in a
      > company or brand name is somehow "limiting" (in connotation, not
      denotation)?
      >
      > I have a proto-client who wants to brand a service "Limited" and
      I'm
      > telling him I think that will play well in the US (he's from
      Canada, where
      > IMO "Limited" is far more common, and with a far lower level
      of "negative"
      > connotation). We can't agree, so I'm looking to be validated or
      set straight.
      >
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic