BOOKMARK
PRINTBrand Strategy
Latest, and Perhaps Final, Version of New gTLD Guidebook Drops
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 09:26 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkYesterday, ICANN released the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs, the version it hopes to present to the Board of Directors for final approval on June 20. This version comes only six weeks after the last version, which attracted a total of 60 comment submissions, many of which expressed concern over trademark protection mechanisms.
Similarly, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) continues to assert that there remain areas where it disagrees with ICANN. Namely, both the GAC and the International Trademark Association (INTA), have argued that ICANN should improve the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Uniform Rapid Suspension system and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure, all of which are designed to provide protections for trademark owners. The GAC and INTA, among others, do not believe these are sufficient. ICANN has not altered these portions of the Guidebook in this latest version.
For the most part, the changes between the last version and this version of the Guidebook have been minor.
For better or worse, there are strong indications that the ICANN Board will in fact approve this version of the Guidebook later this month. That means that over the coming weeks, by the end of July, brand owners should gather facts, seek external advice and prepare to make a decision on whether they will apply for a gTLD. They should consider how gTLDs will benefit them, including how they plan to use it and what advantages they hope to extract from it. But importantly, they should keep in mind that the policy is still not entirely finalized, and so they should not feel pressured to select technical partners like registry and registrar providers. By late August or September, they should begin actively searching for a partner to assist with the application process.
Socializing
Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:47 — Phil Lodico — PermalinkI read an interesting and pretty amusing article in AdAge that compared big brands in social media to Seinfeld’s George Costanza. The author, Reuben Steiger, CEO of brand marketing firm Millions of Us, cited the episode in which George decides that all of his instincts are wrong and that the answer to improving his life is to do exactly the opposite of what he normally would do.
Steiger uses George’s situation as an analogy for how big brands should operate in social media. In short, he says that the traditional marketing mindset does not work in these spaces. Brands can no longer remain larger than life, untouchable entities. This made me think back to an earlier post I read on Mashable, where Tom Smith, the founder of Internet trend consultancy Trendstream, discussed eight ways that the presence of big brands in social media actually benefits consumers.
Both articles get at the same issue: big brands need to utilize social media. With the advent of Web 2.0, consumers have the ability to engage in unprecedented levels of interaction with brands. From reviewing existing products to collaborating on the development of new ones, consumers are constantly getting involved with brands in new and different ways. Social media sites often give consumers a glimpse into companies that would have been impossible only a few years ago. But these developments don’t just benefit consumers; if they play their cards right, big brands will be able to capitalize on these trends as opportunities for growth and improvement.
Participation in social media gives brands unique insight into consumer attitudes and behaviors, which in turn enables companies to develop products and services that match up with consumer preferences. The higher levels of transparency that are an inevitable aspect of social media participation can increase trustworthiness of the brand and improve consumer confidence. This is particularly true in the current economy, where many consumers are forced to choose where to spend their money. Brands that use social media are likely to develop a distinct advantage over those who do not.
