Will the next groundbreaking tractor be named “Kevin”?

As agricultural technology becomes more sophisticated with AI-powered autonomy transforming the industry and establishing a shift from machinery functioning solely as a tool to acting as a partner in the field. Current tractor names frequently oscillate between tradition and futurism. Traditional vocabulary emphasises strength and scale, as in Case IH’s Magnum¹, evoking power and vigour, while brands like John Deere lean into futuristic suggestions of technology and autonomy, as with the StarFire 7000², signalling cutting-edge satellite-guided precision.

These names have been strategically chosen to appeal to customers’ desires of reliability, precision and confidence in their significant investment. Strong names differentiate a product within a crowded market and must function on multiple levels; also aligning with the identity and overarching values of a brand. StarFire 7000 is a prime example, promoting the ingenuity of the product as well as the aspirational goals of John Deere, “reaching for the stars” and demonstrating their aspirational investment into future-proof farming solutions.

This raises an interesting question: why not christen the next groundbreaking tractor Kevin? Of course, this hypothetical name presents as informal, trivial, and unquestionably unconventional for the industry, but might this very anthropomorphism present a branding advantage? Familiar or personable names can construct a sense of trust and attachment to a product, a practice that has been used, formally or informally, for millennia. In maritime tradition, sailors have long attributed female names to their vessels and consistently refer to them as “she³”, a linguistic habit that reinforces a sense of respect, trust and partnership between humans and the world around us.

In a modern context, the personification of technology has become an increasingly common branding strategy to ease the transition into autonomous artificial intelligence as it enters commonplace. Voice assistants such as Amazon’s Alexa and Bing’s Cortana demonstrate how familiar human names can soften the perceived distance between user and machine. Giving recognisable identities to devices eases their adoption and lessens the dissonance of interacting with such advanced technology.

A name like Kevin is approachable, personable, and agreeable. These are all qualities that are pertinent to adoption of AI systems into the agricultural industry, particularly as the user demographic tends to be older than that of most artificial intelligence products⁴. A use of a familiar name may act as a powerful tool to mitigate the intimidating nature of an entirely automated agricultural tool in an industry of users that may be unfamiliar with the capabilities of AI, both in its upfront investment and its continued operation.

This almost “guerilla marketing” tactic of a name that almost diametrically opposes traditional product naming of tractors and farming equipment presents its own benefits. The shock of such an unfamiliar name within the market will surely capture the attention of the entire industry, becoming instantly memorable, sparking curiosity and discourse in a market where differentiation can be difficult to communicate directly. The shock value alone would act as a hook for media attention, drawing potential clients in to explore the innovation and human-centred design behind the product.

Such an obscure branding strategy does of course carry with it many drawbacks and risks. As mentioned, the farming industry is fundamentally very traditional. The name Kevin for a tractor could very well be perceived to undermine the robustness of such a carefully engineered piece of machinery and alienate a large proportion of the target market. Furthermore, a name like Kevin threatens the reputation of an established agricultural brand and may somewhat trivialise any hard-earned recognition. In a sector where trust and credibility are crucial, a name that feels frivolous risks distracting from the qualities that justify significant investment.

Although it is highly unlikely that any manufacturer will name their next automated tractor Kevin, this thought experiment presents some of the many captivating facets of the world of naming. A single word can frame how innovation, reliability and competence are perceived. There is a striking quality to this simple, almost banal name that feels so familiar yet so bizarre in this context that its very humour may evoke accessibility and humanity. A hypothetical such as this also underscores the tendency to anthropomorphise objects, a uniquely human trait that helps us to better connect with the world around us. When used effectively, this can be a powerful marketing tool, such as in the case of Amazon’s Alexa, however this requires attention and must align with the target audience as well as the brand’s image.

Maybe one day fields won’t be full of tractors - but of Kevin’s, but for now, this can be used as a useful reminder of the power of humanity in naming.

Sources

¹https://www.caseih.com/en/africamiddleeast/products/tractors/magnum-series

²https://www.deere.lu/fr/agriculture-de-precision/elements-essentiels/recepteur-starfire-7000/

³https://www.clippermarine.co.uk/news/why-are-boats-female---

⁴https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/the-ageing-crisis-threatening-farming/