I don't see name recognition as being that important in this case, especially since we have a GOP field with no one polling above 15%. Name recognition is important in determining who leads the polls now, but I don't think it matters much in determining who will win in 18 months.
Look, you win Iowa, or even get in the top two or three there, then you have enough name recognition going forward. So, would he be able to raise enough $ for some serious ad buys in the early primary states? I'd assume that he could. But really, it depends on whether some faction of party power brokers sees something appealing in him that puts him ahead of some of the other candidates. If there is no faction that prefers him to his rivals, then obviously it isn't going to work out for him.
Name recognition matters because it means a candidate starts with an advantage, and can build on it. They don't need to convert as many voters to win the early states.
The Republican nomination tends to go to people with name recognition. Nixon was a former VP. Reagan was an also-ran/ Governor of California. George HW Bush was Veep. Dole was an also-ran/ Senate Majority Leader. George W Bush was a big-state Governor/ son of a former President. McCain was an also ran/ prominent Senator. Romney was an also-ran who had essentially been running for President for the last six years.
To have a credible shot at winning the presidency, Pence probably has to win Iowa. If an evangelical from Indiana can't win there, he's not going to do very well in the early primary states.
In any case, I think Pence is an under-considered possibility to be the nominee. (OK, maybe not as under-considered here as in the MSM.)
Remember in 2008, when you had Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson all as serious contenders at various points in the campaign? There was a clear divide between them and the Jim Gilmores, Duncan Hunters, and Tom Tancredos of the race, who were all at about 0 or 1% in the polls the entire time, and had no impact whatsoever. There are only so many "serious contenders" in every presidential campaign, and yes, I do think Pence would manage to be one of them if he ran. I don't think he'd be a Jim Gilmore.
*However*, this depends on his really wanting it. That's an underappreciated trait in presidential candidates who overperform expectations. Those who really want it tend to beat the odds, while folks like Fred Thompson and Rick Perry, who only get in the race because they think there's an opening and an easy path for them, tend to falter.
Pence might turn out to be a Rick Perry 2012-esque "I'm only running because there's an opening for me" type, and if so, his path to victory will probably turn out much rockier than he expects.
I'd differentiate here between first-tier candidates, second-tier candidates and third-tier candidates.
The first-tier are those initially acknowledged to be significant presidential contenders, likely polling at the top of the pack.
The second-tier are those who start at the bottom, but have a chance at the nomination.
The third-tier are those who will not be the nominee.
Jim Gilmore and Tom Tancredo were in the third tier. Huckabee was in the second tier.
Interestingly enough, Democrats seem comfortable nominating candidates who start out in the second tier. See Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis and Bill Clinton.