What I like about Axiom is there is no "flagship" in quality. It's the same drivers, just in different configurations with different technology. This makes the axiom speaker lineup different than most other manufacturers, because there is no new "tier" of speakers -- they all the have same great quality built for different purposes.
Therefore I think it's important
not to suggest this speaker is in a different class than other Axiom speakers.
Notice how we named the M3 outdoor speakers -- "Algonquin" but still M3. They are the same with an additional special name. However, the model number did not change.
It is important to keep the speaker numbering simple for customers to grasp the differences and similarities within the growing family of Axiom speakers. I think we should work off of the current product naming system.
This speaker is a "modified" or "upgraded" version of the M80. It looks and sounds just like the M80, but with a different twist on the backside. I think "M80" should stay in the name to prevent confusion. This is consistent with your current product name and branding.
The
M80-D has a wonderful ring to it. It signifies this is a special version of the M80s.
I also really like the
M80-LFR. The three extra letters add powerful significance. LFR-M80 is also a possibility, but I'm not a fan of it.
When you add more LFR models, an LFR module would be "added" to the back of any speaker in the current lineup. M60-LFR. M22-LFR. Etc. The naming is crystal-clear.
Of course, adding a special secondary name (like the algonquin's) would be nice, but the model number is how these speakers will be identified and understood.
You can introduce this product by saying "We took our award winning M80's and created a sound of a different kind ... presenting the M80-LFR's"
In a press release people would immediately associate with the M80's, and a new, important technology added to them. See how this is works? I think it's a winner
