Every time you bite into a Honeycrisp apple, you’re tasting just one success story of many. Since 1908, the University of Minnesota has been developing cold-hardy fruits at the Arboretum’s Horticultural Research Center (HRC). The program has released 115 varieties of apples, grapes, berries and more since the program’s inception, redefining cold-climate fruit growing and consumer expectations for generations. But of all these cold-hardy fruit releases, the program’s apples have stolen the spotlight and hearts across the globe. Today, the University has released more than 30 apple varieties, each with an iconic name that hints at the apple’s unique characteristics and history.
The University’s apple-naming journey began more than 100 years ago with an apple dubbed Minnehaha in 1920. The program’s modern branding era began in 1991 with Honeycrisp, the University’s first patented apple. A legal misstep prevented the University from trademarking the same name, teaching breeders the importance of separating legal variety names from consumer-facing brands. So, since the release of Zestar® in 1996, every new apple has carried both a patent variety name (‘Minnewashta’ for Zestar®) and a carefully developed trademark.
A core group of University of Minnesota researchers and technology commercialization staff is behind it all. One team member in particular typically gets the ball rolling — David Bedford, M.S., a University of Minnesota apple breeder based at the HRC, who has been a part of the process for more than 45 years.
“David always says it’s much harder to name new apples than it is your children!” said another crucial team member, Anne Hall, Technology Portfolio Manager in the Research & Innovation Office. Hall has been a part of this team for more than 20 years now, as well. She said that, in its early stages, the naming process looks a little different each time — from informal brainstorming with partners to formal committees, large public naming contests involving thousands of University members and even collaboration with a local branding firm.
Whatever the approach, proposed names undergo a complex, scrutinous analysis that the naming team has developed over time. “If a name doesn’t fit most of our criteria, it’s discarded and we continue the search for a better option,” said Hall.
David Bedford, a University of Minnesota apple breeder based at the Horticultural Research Center, has been instrumental in naming University of Minnesota apple releases for more than 45 years. Photo courtesy of CFANS/University of Minnesota
Sweet and snappy goodness
According to Bedford, names that instantly grab consumers are always the top priority. “The name is the one thing you have to distinguish yourself from your competition,” he said. “Studies show a shopper only looks at a new item for around 1.3 seconds. Nobody’s stopping to read the fine print.”
Over the years, the team has also learned that naming fruit after a person or place presents issues. “There has been a long history of place-based names in fruit breeding,” said Matt Clark, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Horticultural Science and Director of Research at the Arboretum. “This often uses Native American words, which is exploitative, or places named after colonizers. We’ve moved away from this.” Now, the team intentionally avoids naming fruit after places, colonizers or any living person.
An apple’s name needs to be short, snappy and memorable. “We’re trying to make it easy to remember, easy to tell your friends about and appealing,” said Bedford. “And we have to convey all of that in a short word or two.”
It also needs to be timeless, because once the team finalizes the name, growers propagate trees, plant orchards and wait for fruit production — creating a lag of several years before apples reach consumers at scale. “It takes 20 years for us to develop and introduce
a variety, and then another five to 10 for a variety to be recognized in the marketplace,” said Bedford. For example, Kudos®, which was released in 2023, is still in the early stages of the production process and won’t be widely available for a few more years.
An apple’s name needs to be marketing-friendly, hinting at the fruit’s taste, texture or feel, without stating those qualities outright with generic terms, which can jeopardize its ability to stand out. Photo courtesy of CFANS/University of Minnesota
Branding the bite
The name should also be marketing-friendly, hinting at the fruit’s taste, texture or feel. However, the name cannot state those qualities outright without jeopardizing its ability to stand out with terms like “sweet” or “red.” These more common and generic words aren’t just run-of-the-mill — they can also pose issues when the team works with trademark attorneys to screen their top choices for any conflicts with other existing trademarked fruit or plant names.
More recently, Mara Sanders, a plant material and IP logistics manager in the Research & Innovation Office, has looped in designers and marketing staff to develop logos and branding around new fruit names, using these assets to create merchandise. “Not only am I getting to see what the name conveys about the apple, but also what an image does,” she said.
After many rounds of evolution over the years, the University’s longstanding excellence in both fruit breeding and naming has connected experts with the community — a tradition that continues today. “Whenever we present names, there are always the people who pull you aside and say, ‘What the heck were you thinking?’” said Clark. “And then there are the other people who you can just see on their faces that they’re so excited about that name.”
Cover image of Kudos®, courtesy of CFANS/University of Minnesota
This story was originally published in Arboretum Magazine, a quarterly magazine for members of the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.