RE: [DNS] thread.119

RE: [DNS] thread.119

From: Adrian Stephan <akstephan§ozemail.com.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:04:15 +1100
A most interesting discussion.

I have a company name that I have spent some 15 years building brand
recognition.  People actually know my company name and type it in to find me
and not some general information.  However, I am now in the position of
having my company identity on the internet stolen from me because someone
made a determination that a certain word that happened to be my company name
was generic.

The auction is not fair, it is simply convenient.

Kim keeps mentioning about the fairness of the auction.  What I don't think
is fair is that ASIC has a set of rules that preclude anyone from  having a
company name too close to an existing name.  Generally, they do not allow
singular or plural forms of the word, not adjectives or nouns.  But, the
internet czars puts themselves above the rules of naming companies and will
allow someone with enough money to steal the name of a company as a domain
name.  No, the generic word is not worthless, what is now worthless is the
15 years of building a business identity.  That is not fair.

For those who try to use logic - forget it.  This is all about power.

Rgds

Adrian

===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan&#167;logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark&#167;businesspark.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 19:35 PM
To: 'dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au'
Subject: RE: [DNS] thread.119


I could well have replied to any number of contributors.  Saliya - it's not
personal :)

There is NO intrinsic value in a generic name, but there is huge marketing
and brand recognition value once that generic name becomes known as
associated with particular commercial entity.  Or, as a marketing person
will tell you, where that generic name ultimately gets to be used
interchangeably with that of the business.

It's the POTENTIAL value of a generic name for which businesses bid.  And
it's worth buying a generic name as a pre-emptive measure, to stop a
competitor from realising that potential.

And how is that value realised?  By marketing, extensive publicity and
through search engines that associate that name with a particular business.
The name in and of itself?  Of no value at all.


Ron Stark
Business Park Pty Ltd
mail: ronstark&#167;businesspark.com.au
phone: +61 (0)3 9592 6895   fax: +61 (0)3 9591 0729
mob: +61 (0)41 812 9922


-----Original Message-----
From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:saliya&#167;hinet.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 6:59 PM
To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] thread.119


On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Michael-Pappas wrote:

> Mark,
>
> > That's why the company that has 'phone.com' stopped using it and changed
> to
> > 'openwave.com' - because they worked out that you can't successfully
brand
> a
> > generic name.  Go to www.phone.com and you'll see.
>
> Sorry but they have never opted to STOP using the name. On the contary the
> name redirect to their site which would get hundreds if not thousands of
> direct typeins. It's the generic name would be greatly responcible for the
> successful website.

You people *just don't get it*; do you ?

People don't *randomly guess at names*. That's akin to randomly stabbing
in the last 4 digits of a phone number, secure in the knowledge that your
Aunty Beryl lives in town 'foo' and you know the first four digits that
belong to 'foo'.

They use search engines.

Search engines do not rely on domain names for ranking.

Any more questions ?

> Would you pass on sex.com or news.com if it was offered to you?
>
> These generic names get direct targeted traffic, people do not have to
think
> in order to find books, toys, sex, cars, etc etc. It's an easy way to gain
> market share on the net. Simple and effective.

And *how* do they get direct targeted traffic ?

1) A user stabs blindly in the dark for a name (demonstrably, doesn't
happen)

2) A user remembers the name promoted elsewhere (demonstrably, does
happen, but *any* three or four-letter name that was similarly easy to
remember would do).

Leading us to the conclusions:

short names have intrinsic value (foo.com is better than
foo.bar.a.b.c.d.xxyz.com, because it is easier to remember and easier to
input directly)

short, easy-to-remember generic names have value for the same reason.

generic names do not have intrinsic value.

> you services think and use their head just to find you. I would hope that

or perhaps just type in what you have told them via other media, or use a
search engine like normal people.

People demonstrably do NOT stab blindly for a name in the hope they get
the 'right' name. They are going to use a search engine - that is what
search engines are for.

The only people that 'generic' names are worth something to is those that
are selling the names, or those making a percentage on the sale of the
names. Anyone falling into the the two just-mentioned categories need not
respond to this post: we already *know* that you have a position to
justify.

Fortunately for me, there *are* people dumb enough to pay extra for a
generic name: meaning that the fees that *I* pay are going to be reduced.
Win/win :)

Regards,

Saliya


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (330 subscribers.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (330 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:10 UTC