UNICEF appears to be in the market for its own TLD.  The UN organization dedicated to providing humanitarian and development aid to children and mothers in developing countries recently announced a Request for Information from potential vendors to help acquire and operate .UNICEF.

Back in October 2009, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) entered into an agreement with ICANN to operate .POST, making UNICEF the second UN organization to pursue its own TLD.  I’m curious to see what will happen going forward – will even more UN organizations follow suit and apply for eponymous TLDs?  Moreover, I wonder why the UN is so interested in owning TLDs and why these organizations feel they need these kinds of labels when they have .INT all to themselves and there is no fee for registering an .INT domain.

I’m also wondering who will be next – maybe the World Health Organization with .WHO?

A new kind of Public Service Announcement (PSA) has arrived - the public service app.  It looks like smartphone apps are no longer limited to games, drink recipes, and social media platforms, meant purely to entertain us and keep us from having to interact with others during those oh-so-tedious minutes waiting for the elevator, bus, or metro.  According to CNN and Mashable, both the United States and UK governments have now released a handful of official apps for both the iPhone and Android that are designed to improve citizens’ quality of life.  Several US government agencies, including NASA, FEMA, and the EPA, have released apps to provide up-to-date information related to their activities, and both countries have released a variety of lifestyle apps designed to help citizens lose weight or get better gas mileage.  The UK has also created apps that are meant to help users quit smoking or find a job.

I think these lifestyle apps are very interesting.  They offer citizens additional, “on-the-ground” support for achieving goals set forth by government programs, like getting people to eat better, exercise more or quit smoking. These apps could boost participation in those programs by making such efforts more convenient, more manageable, or even more fun.

Just a few years ago, the Internet was the undisputed king of consumer engagement.  Directing citizens to a website equipped with facts, tips, and recommended plans-of-action is much more interactive, and usually more successful, than simply instructing viewers to take action via a television ad.  Now, however, smartphone apps are becoming the hottest way to engage customers.  Apps provide instant and individual programming to users every day no matter where they are — not just at their computers.  These two governments appear to understand that both consumer habits and forms of communication are rapidly changing, and they are aptly trying to adapt their messaging.

Most, if not all, of these apps have corresponding websites, and it is unlikely that the apps will cannibalize traffic from the websites already in place.  For extended visits and in-depth searching, consumers are still likely to prefer using their computer to a smartphone.  Instead, these apps will hopefully augment the existing sites and make consumers more likely to engage with and integrate the content into their daily lives.  If these apps catch on, the age of mobile marketing could work wonders for the PSA.

I’m up in Eagle River, Wisconsin on vacation with my sons this week.  We visited last year around this time, and I blogged about that trip as well. 

My birthday was on Saturday, and in addition to my two boys Charlie and Oliver, my sister, my parents and my grandmother were all here to celebrate with me.  We spent all day out on the lakes, fishing, swimming and boating.  For my birthday dinner, I chose bratwurst – which you can see pictured here – and my mom made her homemade coleslaw. 

As the brats sizzled away on the grill, I got curious about who owns bratwurst.com.  Turns out it’s Johnsonville Sausage, which got its start here in Wisconsin.  Bratwurst.com is obviously a great name for the company to own, so way to go, Johnsonville.  Now, if only they would build a separate site – even a very basic one – at bratwurst.com, they should get it to rank separately in organic search results.  Their competitor, The Sheboygan Bratwurst Company, did and they fairly easily grabbed a spot on page 1 with bratwurst.net.  Johnsonville.com ranks on the first page of a search for “bratwurst,” but if the company could also get bratwurst.com to rank, they could potentially push another site off page 1 and collect even more traffic.

The clever marketer behind the Charlie Murphy ads should leverage its digital assets better and dominate online just like it does in the grocery store.

FairWinds recently released a study that calculated the cost of typosquatting for the brands behind the 250 most highly trafficked websites.  The total included costs from visitor acquisitions, lost sales and impressions and also recovery of typosquatted domain names, and came out to $327 million per year.

A major source of losses for brand owners is pay-per-click (PPC) sites; when a company invests in paid search, its ads appear on PPC and other websites in addition to the search engine’s results pages.  When an Internet user clicks on the sponsored link, either on the search engine site or another site, the company pays a click fee.  When an Internet user makes a typo or keystroke error while trying to reach a brand’s website and lands on a typosquatted domain site that is leveraging PPC to monetize traffic, we have found there is an 18% chance he or she will click on the targeted brand’s link (meaning the brand suffers a loss in the form of a click fee for gaining the visitor) and a 7% chance he or she will click on a competitor’s link (meaning the brand suffers a loss in the form of diversion while another advertiser pays the cost-per-click (CPC) and picks up the visitor).  The formulas that we used to calculate those losses are as follows:

For users who click on the targeted brand’s link:
18% x (Annual traffic per domain) x (Average CPC) = Advertising costs for the target brand

For users who click on a competitor’s link:
7% x (Annual traffic per domain) x (Average CPC) = Advertising costs for the target brand’s competitor

Originally in our calculations, we used an average CPC of $2.74 for each formula.  Given that we could calculate the CPC for the specific keywords in this study of 250 sites, we leveraged today’s Google estimates for each keyword CPC rather than looking at an historical average for a broad range of keywords.  Because there was a range of CPC and traffic values that could have created bias, we then extracted the weighted average CPC across the dataset.  We determined that $2.03 was the weighted average CPC for all the sites included in our study and therefore, $2.03 is the actual cost the site owners incur when a visitor lands on a typosquatted parked page and clicks on their link. Ultimately, this is the amount of money paid by the advertiser and shared by the contextual Internet advertising provider and the owner of the domain (and sometimes an intermediate party such as a domain parking company).

Obviously, this reconsideration alters our final calculation somewhat.  With the new average CPC, the total cost from ad clicks on typosquatted PPC sites in our study is $187,288,458 per year.  When added to the costs of lost sales and impressions, plus domain recovery costs, the re-calculated total cost of typosquatting is $364,276,874 per year.

If it’s not already apparent in the scope of this study, this figure applies to the 250 sites that we studied, and is not a comprehensive measure of all typosquatting (that figure would obviously be much greater).  To read the updated paper with an in-depth discussion of the damage that typosquatting inflicts on the 250 most trafficked websites, visit the FairWinds site for the entire paper, or the revised section for a discussion of how we calculated the sample set CPC.

I was driving with my family to Nationals Park to see the Nats play the San Francisco Giants on Sunday, when I noticed a Windows Catering truck drive by. As it passed, (because I can’t help myself) I noticed the company’s domain name displayed on the side of truck. Again, because I can’t help myself, I asked my wife to slow down so I could take a picture of the truck for this post. I knew that a local business using a name like CATERING.COM would make a dynamite blog post. Alas, the truck pulled off at Navy Yard before I could call up the camera function on my BlackBerry. (I wish I had gotten the photo; if we can get a picture from the catering company, I will update this post later.)

It’s likely that the domain name windows.com was not available when the catering company first looked to “get online,” for obvious reasons (think Microsoft). So Windows Catering had to come up with an alternative domain name.

I wish I knew the story of how they came to acquire this domain name because it’s extremely valuable. I routinely run valuations for my clients and research how much domains are trading for in the domain aftermarket. I think a domain like catering.com could easily fetch between $1 million and $3 million today.

Why? Because catering.com likely garners a fair amount of type-in traffic, but it also has a unique ability to rank well in organic search results. Google and Bing (especially) assign page rank to older domains with keyword-to-domain root parity and sites linking in, so this domain has special attributes that earn it “search love.” This means that with even a modest SEO investment in the website itself, search engines are likely to assign it a high placement in organic search results. This gives the domain/website maximum visibility and increases the opportunity for it to earn organic click-throughs, without the incremental costs associated with paid search. Internet users broadly search the term “catering” over 16,000,000 times per month, and each time, they see catering.com among the top results.

This high rank not only drives traffic to Windows Catering from local D.C. searches, but it also introduces the brand to the wider U.S. search audience by delivering their impression to searchers throughout the country. For another example of how this works, go to google.co.uk and search for “catering.” You will see a UK company that owns a different domain with “search love,” caterer.com – this site’s owner has earned the top position in organic search in the UK because the domain has a Google page rank score of “5.” (In comparison, Guinness.com and Cadbury.com each have a Google page rank of “6,” despite being much better known brands.)

Smartly, Windows Catering also owns WindowsCatering.com, which it redirects to catering.com, for those customers who are familiar with the brand and search for it directly.

I think that this is a great example of the positive effects that a well-chosen domain name can have on a company. Sometimes unbranded domains can enhance a brand strategy, and not just for smaller players like Windows Catering. Just look at what Toys.com and Mortgage.com have done for Toys “R” Us owner Geoffrey, LLC and Citigroup, respectively.

UPDATE: Windows Catering got in touch after reading this post and sent over a picture of the catering truck that a fan had posted on Twitter:

We’ve written before about start-up companies that use alternative spellings of common words as their brand names.  I came across another example recently: Loopt, a social-mapping service that offers a variety of mobile apps.  Loopt uses loopt.com as its domain name.  It also owns the more intuitive and conventional spelling of the domain, looped.com, which it points to the Loopt homepage. 
 
It’s always nice to see companies that get it.  Kudos to Bidz (bids.com), Loopt (looped.com) and Flickr (flicker.com).

The other night, I was at dinner with my wife and she pointed out that, in addition to the usual sweeteners (sugar, Equal, Splenda, etc), the restaurant also had a stevia sweetener.  I had not heard of stevia before, and was unfamiliar with this particular brand, Stevia Extract in the Raw (SEITR), so I picked up the packet to take a look. 

Stevia is a plant with sweet leaves from which a low-calorie sweetener can be derived.  It’s regarded as a more natural alternative to artificial sugar substitutes like Equal and Sweet-n-Low.  SEITR’s parent company, Cumberland Packing Corp, also owns Sugar in the Raw, a popular brand of unrefined sugar.  Presumably, the brand name was chosen based on the “Sugar in the Raw” convention.

On the back of the packet, I quickly noticed the domain name: SteviaExtractInTheRaw.com.  Even though this is simply the brand name appended with .COM, it’s a terrible domain name, mostly because it is so long.  Also, it’s very easy to overlook the word “Extract,” because it is in such a smaller font, tucked under “Stevia,” meaning consumers will be likely to forget to include it when typing the domain name and they might assume, like I did, that “Stevia” is the brand name.

Unfortunately, Stevia.com has already been taken by another company, Healthworld Online, Inc., an online resource for health and wellness information. The site heavily promotes another brand of stevia sweetener: SweetLeaf. 

Here’s a screenshot:

Luckily though, Cumberland Packing Corp also owns SteviaInTheRaw.com and points it to the main SEITR site.  This is a better domain name than SteviaExtractInTheRaw.com because it is shorter and because, based on the logo, it is more intuitive for consumers.  Additionally, it reinforces the ties to the sister brand, Sugar in the Raw.  I think brands should be conscious of these issues and focus on making it easier for consumers to access their content online.  One way SEITR could do this would be to promote SteviaInTheRaw.com as its primary domain name.  Another way the company could gain considerable competitive advantages is to acquire stevia.com and own the category online.

Choosing the best name for a brand or marketing program can be a tough task.  People often focus on the creative aspect, but the more practical aspects of the decision – like securing and protecting the name – can be very complex.

As I was thinking about this, I remembered the flowchart graphic pictured here that a friend sent to me after seeing it on the tech blog Gizmodo.  I know a few people who you might call “addicted” to their smartphones (usually BlackBerries more often than iPhones), so I found it pretty amusing to follow the chart through different scenarios.

When you look at the graphic (click on it to see the full-size version), it’s easy to see how it works: you start at the beginning, ask yourself the questions posited on the chart, and depending on your answer, follow the arrows to more questions and ultimately, to a conclusion.  Even though this particular chart is designed to be fun and sort of tongue-in-cheek, these are pretty accurate representations of most decision-making processes.  Namely, they point out the fact that when we try to make a decision, we face certain questions, which often lead us to other questions before they lead us to answers.

This is definitely true when it comes to selecting the best name for a brand or a marketing program.  To begin with, you have to figure out whether or not it is possible to protect the name, namely whether you will be able to get a trademark for it.  The next question is if the name is available as a domain name, specifically in .COM but also perhaps in .ORG if the entity is a charity or non-profit organization.  If the .COM domain is not available, it is crucial to determine how it is being used: if it is being used legitimately, if it belongs to a domain name speculator or if it belongs to another strategic user but is not being put to use.  This determines whether it will be possible to obtain the domain from its current owner and what it might cost you.  Sometimes, even when a speculator or strategic user owns it, he or she could want an unreasonable or unexpectedly high amount of money for the domain.

Another domain name issue to consider is whether the name is available in the appropriate ccTLDs for target markets in different countries.  Then you need to decide which typo or misspelling variations Internet users are likely to type in, and which of those to register.  Similarly, you need to determine which keywords users are likely to combine with the brand name and which of those combination domain names you should register.  And then comes social media: you have to figure out the best corresponding usernames across platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others, and then see if they are available, or can be acquired if they have already been secured.

The process can seem confusing, in the same way that a flowchart can look like a tangled, messy web.  But when you know which questions to ask, and take the time to answer them fully and honestly, you can carve out a clear path that will lead you to the best name for your brand or marketing program.
 

You may have read about flicker.com’s recent transfer to Yahoo!. At first glance a generic verb, the domain name is also a highly-trafficked and very intuitive misspelling of Flickr, the popular photo-sharing site that Yahoo! owns.  Like Flickr, many Web 2.0 brands are utilizing misspellings of common words to make their brands more distinctive (Del.icio.us and Digg come to mind). Some also turn to unconventional spellings because the domain name version of the “correct” spelling isn’t available.  According to Tech Crunch, when the founders of Flickr first came up with the idea for the site, they liked the name “Flicker.”  Unfortunately, flicker.com was already registered, so they adjusted the brand’s spelling to “Flickr” and set up a website on flickr.com.

Despite the prevalence of alternative spellings in Web 2.0 brand and domain names, many consumers are not catching on to these “typos” and are typing the customary spellings into their browser bars when searching for the brands in question. The owner of flicker.com attempted to capitalize on this trend by hosting ads for photo-related products and releasing harmful tweets from a similarly “misspelled” Twitter handle, both of which were problematic for the Flickr brand.  As Flickr’s popularity rose, flicker.com saw a significant increase in traffic, making the name a valuable online asset. 

Right now, tumbler.com is undergoing a similar phenomenon, with traffic increasing an estimated 270% in the last 12 months as Tumblr.com, the social blogging site, also saw an increase in visitors of a similar amount in the past year.  In the case of tumbler.com, however, this “typo” actually points to a branded third-party site.  Tervis Tumbler Company, which produces popular, customizable drinking glasses, known as tumblers, and accessories, is currently using tumbler.com and is redirecting the domain to their site, tervis.com.

Unlike flicker.com, tumbler.com is not attempting to piggyback on the popularity of the similarly named social media site.  Tervis Tumbler aptly purchased this generic product domain many years before Tumblr’s genesis in the hopes that it would boost Tervis’s traffic and that consumers looking online for tumblers in general would come across the Tervis brand.  But I’d be willing to bet that Tervis isn’t too upset that they are getting additional visitors, even if they are finding the site by accident.  What would be interesting to see is if this increased traffic actually results in additional sales for Tervis.

So should Tumblr be worried about this domain?  I don’t think so.  Tervis isn’t infringing upon the Tumblr brand here, and visitors finding a store full of Tervis Tumblers are not going to mistake this for another blogging site and abandon their search for Tumblr.  Also, despite Tervis’ ownership of tumbler.com, Tumblr still ranks first on a Google search for the word “tumbler,” meaning that Internet users who use search engines rather than direct navigation will immediately be presented with Tumblr’s site.  Long story short, I think Tumblr can rest assured that consumers won’t be diverted for long by the 60-year old tumbler company, but Tervis is enjoying the serendipitous stream of potential new customers being introduced to their company.
 

I just finished a conversation with a contact who is still at the ICANN meeting in Brussels.  He attended the ICANN Public Forum and let me know that in his opinion it looks like the .XXX gTLD, an extension dedicated to hosting adult content, should be approved soon.  Overall, he said, there was very little objection from the forum attendees.  In fact, the discussion lasted only about 20 minutes.  I can’t say I expected much more – many people who attend ICANN meetings and participate in the ICANN process are, generally speaking, either interested in selling more and more domain names (like registrars), or are totally oblivious to the ICANN community’s bias toward selling more names.

On the other hand, I heard the discussion over whether or not ICANN’s Chairman of the Board should earn a $75,000 salary lasted a full 45 minutes.