I'm the opposite. Security researchers have struggled for decades to get people to fix their stuff after discovering something is broken. When a vuln has a human-readable name that sounds vaguely scary, even nontechnical decision makers can ask good questions like "are we vulnerable to this 'heartbleed' thing?". Anecdotal, but I've definitely noticed people talking about them; I've seen articles in mainstream press referencing some of these named vulns and have even had friends who are otherwise uninterested in computers ask me about them!

Certainly there's a self-serving glamorous aspect to it on the part of security researchers, but fun names and logos brings attention to issues that otherwise result in eyes glazing over. As much as this stuff makes me cringe to read, I'm willing to bet the branding for this issue will result in more eyes on it and probably will result in a fix. That's ultimately what vuln disclosure is about, after all.

Yeah, the in-your-face advert right before the main text is very spammy too:

  "Do you know if attacks like like Simjacker or other next
  generation attacks are happening in your network?

  Book a meeting [with us to find out]."

The website feels like a con/ad rather than something legit.

Why?

Yeah the little SIM card face cringed me out

Dead link?

Yep, it's all fluff. They were supposed to reveal more information on the matter in a conference back in October. But we still only have a "technical" paper with nice looking graphs and an unnamed boogie-man.

This product/company, for example: https://rayzone.com/geomatrix-geolocation-system/

Most likely: NSO Group