I run a small consulting firm that I've had for about 6 months. I'm the only employee. I named it after myself (think "J. Alvarez Consulting") because it was easy and I didn't want to overthink. Now I'm about to hire my first two people, and it feels strange to have my name on the door when they'll be doing a lot of the client-facing work. I don't want them to feel like they're just working for me as an individual. Has anyone navigated this? Should I rebrand now before I grow more, or is this a non-issue?
Branding
Naming the company after yourself when you plan to hire people
It's not a non-issue. Your name on the company signals that you are the product. That's great for a solo shop, but once you hire, clients will expect you specifically. If you want to build something that can scale, a separate brand is worth considering early. Six months in is not too late.
We did the opposite. Company has founder's last name, and we've got 14 people now. It's been fine. Clients barely care after the first meeting. Honestly the bigger issue is when the founder leaves, not when you hire.
Rebranding later costs more. Do it now while you have almost no brand equity to lose. Pick a neutral name that doesn't lock you in.
What kind of consulting? If it's relationship-driven, having your name can actually reassure clients that they're getting a real person. If you're trying to build a team that runs without you, different story.
I don't read a founder's name as "I am the product." Plenty of big firms are named after their founders and no one thinks twice. Take "Deloitte" for example. That's just a last name and it's a massive global firm now. I think people overthink this. If the name is easy to say and remember, keep it. Changing it just adds confusion for existing clients.
You should think about who the brand serves. If clients are hiring you because of your personal network, keeping your name is an asset. If clients are hiring a service outcome, a neutral name lets you grow past yourself.
Short answer: no. Longer answer: don't waste the time and money on a rebrand six months in. Your clients already know the name. Introduce thhe new hires as an extension of your quality, not as a break from it.
I hired three people under my own name, and the only weird part was the email addresses. Like, my name is on the domain but they are sending client emails from it. Nobody complained. I did eventually move to a different brand after year three, but mostly because I wanted a name that showed up alphabetically better online.
How much would a rebrand actually cost you right now? New domain, new logo, new filing maybe? If the number is small, do it. If it's a distraction from hiring, skip it.
I think the fact that you're asking means it bothers you. That's reason enough. You don't have to go dramatic, just pick a name that works whether it's you or your team on the call.
If you plan to sell the business someday, having your name on it is a liability. Buyers don't want a brand tied to a person who is leaving.
That's the real point. It's not about what your hires feel, it's about the exit. A personal name is a hard sell.
Counterpoint: many buyers happily purchase founder-named firms because the founder agrees to stay on for two years. Not all buyers care if the name is neutral.
I'd look at the contracts and legal docs. If the entity is your personal name, changing it now is easier than later when you have employees and payroll and a lease. Do the administrative part now, worry about the logo later.
Most small businesses never make it to the point where this matters. If you've got two hires lined up and clients paying, you've already beaten the odds. Don't let naming be the thing that slows you down. Keep the name, get the people in, revisit in a year.
Six months is still early, but not so early that a change is painless. I renamed mine at eleven months and it cost a weekend and a few apologetic emails. That's nothing. The cost grows fast with time. If you're gonna do it, do it before the first new hire starts.