What's interesting is that McDonald's has tried something like this this before and, it has been argued, effed it up due to naming.
For an interesting account of their first failed attempt, 30 years ago, I highly recommend this New Yorker article, The Trouble with Fries (2001):
https://web.archive.org/web/20081218211703/http://www.gladwe...
It's Malcolm Gladwell so take it with a packet of salt I suppose. I think it's Gladwell at his best and I often find myself referring back to it whenever the topics of fast food or marketing come up.
On the naming:
The McLean was a flop, and four years later it was off the market. What happened? Part of the problem appears to have been that McDonald's rushed the burger to market before many of the production kinks had been worked out. More important, though, was the psychological handicap the burger faced. People liked AU Lean in blind taste tests because they didn't know it was AU Lean; they were fooled into thinking it was regular ground beef. But nobody was fooled when it came to the McLean Deluxe. It was sold as the healthy choice--and who goes to McDonald's for health food?
Times have changed, but I think there's still a lot to be said for this suggestion at end of article:
But transparency can backfire, because sometimes nothing is more deadly for our taste buds than the knowledge that what we are eating is good for us. McDonald's should never have called its new offering the McLean Deluxe, in other words. They should have called it the Burger Supreme or the Monster Burger, and then buried the news about reduced calories and fat in the tiniest type on the remotest corner of their Web site.