Feature
Post

Category
Strategy


Essentials: Naming that makes sense!

Essentials - Branding that makes sense

Picking up in our essentials series, this week I’m here to cover a topic that is more about pure annoyance than importance, but when you think about it, it makes perfectly clear sense. Enter in the dispute between real domain names and over-initialized domains, and you got yourself another case of Devlounge essentials.

Welcome to Devlng

Ever since Flickr, the need for shorter company names has multiplied faster than a few bunnies locked in a room. I never expected to see domains for sale that are nothing more than a random combination of letters selling, and worse, being used to brand an entire site or startup.

What’s the value of shorter domain names? There’s always been that low-character issue, that the least amount of letters a name can be, the easier it can be to remember and the more valuable the name is. Is it true? Maybe to all the domain appraisal companies, but not to most of us.

It’s disappointing to see some many sites falling into the “web 2.0 BS Express”, and simply following the crowd. Sites that are creating their image by dropping a few letters off of their name and replacing it with an “r”, or spelling words entirely different for dramatic effect.

Are we that creative(less), or did we all just miss the spelling bee?

The question here becomes why would anyone bother to build a brand around a name that, in English, or even any language, has absolutely no meaning? What happen to the days when people would join meaningful words together to form strong names that had some backbone to them? Sadly, they are coming to an end.

Brand(less) Naming has consequences

Why would someone sacrifice a true meaning name for a jumble of letters? One reason could be creativity. Is the web in general lacking so much originality that we find ourselves forced to used alternative spellings to use names already taken by other companies? Why not try something different?

Than there’s the issue of spelling. Never should dropping a few letters be considered acceptable in helping clients remember your brand name. If you’re forcing your visitors to check their intelligence at the door before entering your site, you’re really not making any progress.

The moral of the story

Forget that hype that is the web world we live in. Stop stooping to ridiculous levels for the sake of joining in with the crowd in todays “web 2.0″ world. Instead, start branding your site with logical names formed with actual words that have meaning behind them. In the long run it will only benefit your brand, because language can never go out of style, but little initials can. Remember, you’re out to create a positive and reputable brand, not the next code name for “l33t” gamer discussion.

devlng out


  1. By csslove posted on January 28, 2007 at 8:19 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I absolutely agree.
    It’s just sad that so many people try their best to follow the trends, and don’t realize that it’s much more beneficial to be UNIQUE.
    Flickr, that’s a unique name, they did the “dropped letter” thing first. It’s done. Don’t copy just for the sake of it.

  2. By MCF posted on January 28, 2007 at 8:29 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Flickr, being the original character dropper, is a great name. It’s unfortunate, as you mention, that too many have followed.

    Flickr (and other such names) only fit into a society which help generate such linguistic shortcuts… it’s akin to texting on your mobile phone (sorry, txtng!?)

    However, domain name availability is also a major stumbling block for 100% web based businesses. Do you really think flicker.com was available? At a decent price? Are any decent, credible words available as domains anymore?

    Therein lies two issues.

  3. By aj posted on January 28, 2007 at 8:58 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    And I agree. The amount of domains used up, and in many cases by people who don’t even have a use for them but just hope to make a profit, puts a chokehold on creativity when creating a name for your brand. But the letter-dropping trend is so popular now, that’s it’s being used in cases where it’s entirely not neccessary at all.

  4. By Ronald Huereca posted on January 28, 2007 at 9:00 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Oh… The grammar Nazi is coming out when I see shortened names such as Flickr or Kevn. At least if you’re going to use a shortened name, add in the apostrophe. Then again, Flick’r doesn’t look as pretty.

  5. By Sal Shepherd posted on January 28, 2007 at 10:43 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    There are many reasons for that but mainly in the internet era, lack of availability of good domains. If Flickr could at the time they started operation get “Flicker.com” they likely would, but the name was registered years before they started. Same goes with so many other names/brands.
    The argument of generic vs made up words for brands isn’t something new. Both have their downsides and upsides. On one hand with a made up word you have better trademark protection as the word isn’t descriptive. On the other hand, you have to pay dearly to educate the masses.
    With generic words you have the opposite. You don’t have to educate the masses as the name is descriptive but.. no trademark protection (if used in its descriptive manner).
    Two examples:
    1. Descriptive brand : search.com – In this case if someone starts a site related to search on “serch.com”, search.com has no ground and can lose market share.
    2. Made up brand : ebay.com – If someone starts anything related to online auction on a similar name ebay has ground for trademark infringement.

  6. By Ranjani (Biscuitrat) posted on January 28, 2007 at 4:57 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I think Flickr is the only example of a truncated name that has worked, and isn’t accused of following a set mold — it is the original, after all. I really think it only works well for Flickr, since Flickr is the innovator. It looks cute, but for a professional site, cutting off letters doesn’t accomplish anything. Flickr is cute and fun, so it’s legitimized.

    Good thing we’re all Webdesignrs and know this already ;)

  7. By Connor Wilson posted on January 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I agree that Flickr is a great name, but I don’t think it’s worked since (vowel dropping), and can’t see it happening in the future.

  8. Trackbackmcdave.net » links for 2007-01-29Techscape » Blog Archive » Web 2.0 news: Facebook/Jobster,Devlounge | Friday Focus #37