BOOKMARK
PRINTDomain Names
In the Middle East, is it Really All about ME?
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:33 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkA few days ago, a client sent me an email asking me to weigh in on what domain names her company should register to correspond with its presence in markets in the Middle East. While she was planning to register the core brand name in the relevant ccTLDs, or country code top-level domains (Brand.ae for the United Arab Emirates, Brand.co.il for Israel, etc.), her distributor in the region had advised her that local Internet users tend not to direct navigate to domains in their ccTLDs. Instead, she said that consumers typically type in the brand name followed by “ME” in .COM. So, the distributor advised, our client should register BrandME.com.
The client asked me if I agreed that this was a common practice, and if other major brands followed this naming convention. To my knowledge, it was much more common for brands to stick with ccTLD domains. Off the top of my head, I couldn’t think of any big brands that follow the BrandME.com practice my client had described. But it sounded interesting, so I wanted to look into it further.
I decided to take a sample of the biggest brands and see whether or not they used BrandME.com domain names. For a quick reference, I looked at the top 20 brands on Interbrand’s Best Global Brands of 2011 list.
Of those 20, I found that only four owned their BrandME.com domain names: Coca-Cola (Coca-ColaME.com, but not CocaColaME.com or CokeME.com), Google (GoogleME.com), McDonald’s (McDonaldsME.com), and Disney (DisneyME.com). Of those four, only two, McDonald’s and Disney, actually direct those domains to content. McDonaldsME.com redirects to McDonaldsArabia.com; DisneyME.com displays Disney content in English.
Of the other 16, some brands’ BrandME.com domains had been registered by third parties. Most pointed to Pay-Per-Click ads or parked pages. Others did not resolve to content. The rest of the BrandME.com domains were not currently registered.
Because the client is a cosmetics company, I checked about five other cosmetic brands’ BrandME.com domains as well. None resolved to brand content. In fact, none resolved to content at all.
So what did I end up telling the client? Basically, it won’t hurt her to make sure all her bases are covered by registering her BrandME.com domain name. But the standard practice is to stick to registering the brandname in the ccTLDs of the relevant markets. If a company has a presence in Saudi Arabia, in other words, it should go after Brand.com.sa.
What Rhymes with “Expired”?
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 15:05 — Phil Lodico — PermalinkAnyone who has lost a domain because they let the registration lapse knows how important it is to make sure to renew your domains before the registration expires. Just ask Trevor Tahlem Smith, Jr.
Not familiar with Mr. Smith? You might know him better by his stage name, Busta Rhymes. That’s right, the iconic rapper’s domain name, BustaRhymes.com, expired today. According to The Domains, the domain listed a management company, Flip Mode Licensing, LLC.
Looks like Busta better busta move to get his domain back.
What's My Name Again?
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 17:38 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkIn the past we've written about members of Congress and other elected officials who do not own their names as domain names. In many cases, the officials' names have been registered by opportunistic squatters and host pay-per-click ads. But every so often, an official's name is registered by a competing candidate or the opposite political party.
The latest instance of this trend targets someone who is not an elected official, but a well-known Washington figure nonetheless. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) owns the domain name JackAbramoff.com, and Abramoff is none too happy about it.
Abramoff is a former GOP lobbyist who recently spent three years in prison after pleading guilty to two separate federal cases, one involving the submission of bogus loan documents and the other involving bribery of lawmakers and Hill aides. The DCCC registered the domain JackAbramoff.com in 2006, the same year Abramoff came clean about his corrupt dealings, and points it to a site displaying the message "We didn't forget, Jack."
According to Abramoff, he tried to get the domain name back "amicably," but the DCCC refused to give it up. Now he is threatening legal action.
Abramoff could have a case if he can assert trademark rights to his name predating the registration of the domain. To qualify for a trademark, Abramoff must prove he has used his name in connection with the public offering or sale of some kind of product or service in interstate commerce. Whether or not he will be successful remains to be seen.
This just goes to show, it's worth registering your name as a domain name early. You never know when something is going to make you famous.
Are You Ready for Some Traffic?
Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:54 — Josh Bourne — Permalink
I missed the Chicago-Philadelphia football game last night, so this morning I went online to check the score. On a whim I decided to type MondayNightFootball.com into my browser bar, thinking that there was a chance it might lead me to what I was looking for.
The domain directed me to a page on ESPN's website. At the top of the page was an error message that said, "The URL you requested does not exist, but you may be interested in the content below." That content below was a list of search results for the query "NFL." Since the domain redirected to an ESPN URL, I checked out the WHOIS records and found out that ESPN does indeed own MondayNightFootball.com – or at least, ABC Sports, Inc. owns the domain, and ABC and ESPN are both owned by the Walt Disney Company.
That made sense to me, given that ESPN has been broadcasting Monday Night Football since 2006. Out of curiosity, I went over to Google and searched "Monday Night Football," The first result? ESPN's Monday Night Football page, located at espn.go.com/nfl/mnf. So if ESPN owns the domain name MondayNightFootball.com, why doesn't it redirect the domain to the section of its website devoted to Monday Night Football?
According to Compete, the domain MondayNightFootball.com gets, on average, roughly 500 unique visitors per month, and peaks at around 1,600 visitors per month during football season. Based on our own research, we have found Compete grossly underestimates traffic to some domains, so this number could actually be higher. But what this means is, with a simple redirect, ESPN could drive, at minumim, an extra 500 to 1,600 people to its Monday Night Football page without having to create any new content at all.
I also checked on MNF.com, the abbreviation that ESPN uses both in its URL and in its television broadcasts. ESPN does not own that domain, which currently points to a pay-per-click site. During the off-season, MNF.com only gets around 200 unique visitors per month, but during the fall, traffic jumps to over 3,000 visitors per month. Many Internet users favor shorter domains (think AE.com for American Eagle Outfitters or UA.com for Under Armour), so it's not surprising that football fans type in MNF.com about twice as much as MondayNightFootball.com during football season.
If ESPN were to acquire MNF.com and redirect both that domain and MondayNightFootball.com to its existing Monday Night Football page, it could boost its traffic by approximately 4,000 monthly visitors (at least) during the NFL season. While this number is tiny compared to the total MNF audience, it represents a boost that ESPN could gain without any extra promotion or content development. The traffic figures also show that these domains are likely to be highly intuitive to a broader audience as well. This dual redirection strategy would allow the sports media leader to build up its MNF brand without losing the folks who prefer to type in MondayNightFootball.com.
And that means Monday Night Football's next big winner could be ESPN itself.
Spreading the Word
Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:54 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkLast summer, FairWinds published a whitepaper on the cost of typosquatted domains for the 250 most popular websites. Through our calculations, we discovered that typosquatted domains cost those websites, in total, millions of dollars per year due to unnecessary advertising costs, lost sales, and poor user experiences.
Yesterday, Bloomberg Businessweek ran a story by Tom McNichol detailing the threat the typosquatting poses for companies. McNichol cited our study, "The Cost of Typosquatting," in that article to illustrate how pervasive and damaging the problem is. It's a great article that really gets at the heart of the problem, so we recommend giving it a read. You can also check out our most recent typosquatting study, which identified a link between social media typosquatting and online survey scams.
Bond's Back
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:41 — Tom Carroll — Permalink
It’s been about three years since the last James Bond movie, "Quantum of Solace," was released in theaters. After some delays, which were the result of speculation that Daniel Craig might be walking away from the role of 007 and problems at MGM, it looks like the next Bond movie will be coming out in November 2012. And it looks like it will be titled “Skyfall.”
According to The Guardian’s film blog, a company working on behalf of Sony Pictures (the studio that will be co-financing and distributing the newest Bond flick) has been grabbing a series of domain names containing the term “skyfall,” including JamesBond-Skyfall.com, Skyfall-Film.net, Skyfall-TheFilm.com and others. Unfortunately, Skyfall.com is already registered to a company called Skyfall Creative.
This happens frequently with new movie titles, as FairWinds pointed out in a study that examined domain naming trends in the movie industry over the past decade. Of course, studios always have the option of trying to purchase the domain names, but many opt to simply register a variant of the Title.com instead.
The more pressing question is, who’s going to be the new Bond Girl?
Really?
Mon, 09/26/2011 - 13:25 — Samantha Demetriou — Permalink
First there was an app to help guys answer that eternal question, “Where the ladies at?” Now, for the truly socially unfortunate who can’t even seem to find a girlfriend using a giant digital compass, there is a brand-new service: FakeGirlfriend.co.
Remember that old line, “Yeah dude, I totally have a girlfriend. You’ve just never met her because she lives in Kansas/Canada/the Alpha Quadrant”? Maybe, just maybe, that used to work back in the days before the Internet or cell phones. You know, back when people used to “go steady” and “write letters.”
But now, in an age where your friends can demand that you show them your “girlfriend’s” Facebook profile on your smartphone to prove her existence, what can you do to avoid being called out on your ruse?
The answer (aside from creating a fake Facebook account using photos from the latest American Eagle catalogue) is FakeGirlfriend.co. Here’s how it works: You save the FakeGirlfriend number in your phone, and then send a text message to that number when your bros start demanding proof. FakeGirlfriend will respond with what it has determined to be a “girlfriend-esque” text, which I can only imagine reads something to the effect of, “Hey baby, you’re soooo cute! XOXO!! <3 ;)” About a minute after you receive the text, FakeGirlfriend will call you with a prerecorded message, and bam! Instant proof of your man-prowess.
Unless of course, you know, you actually attempt a conversation with the prerecorded message. But why would you? Girlfriends aren’t for talking to, they’re for displaying to your homeboys as trophies in homage to your epic pimp-itude.
The real hilarity for me here, even beyond the whole premise of FakeGirlfriend, is that the service uses the domain name FakeGirlfriend.co instead of FakeGirlfriend.com. The .COM domain was apparently not an option for the masterminds behind the service, since it was registered back in 2008. Currently, it resolves to CommercialArt.com. I guess the FakeGirlfriend inventors thought .CO would be a good substitute, seeing as how the Colombian ccTLD has been promoting itself as a viable alternative to .COM.
I believe that about as much as I believe the line about your Canadian girlfriend.
Is that my Chanel You're Squatting?
Fri, 09/23/2011 - 09:17 — Josh Bourne — Permalink.jpg)
As of earlier this week, luxury retailer Chanel Inc. has filed a massive cyberpiracy and trademark infringement lawsuit against 399 websites hosted on domain names that contain Chanel’s trademarks. According to Chanel, the sites have been selling counterfeit goods like shoes, handbags, clothing, jewelry and other accessories.
The lawsuit is seeking an order to seize the domain names listed in the complaint. Domain name seizures have been a popular tactic used by the U.S. government, especially the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, to shut down the sales of counterfeit goods and pirated content online. The attorneys handling the Chanel case also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tiffany & Co. back in April against 223 domain name owners. There are 19 defendants from the Tiffany suit that are named in the Chanel suit.
The lawsuit contends that the owners of these domains use search engine optimization strategies to rank highly in search results and make it easy for consumers to find their sites.
These two lawsuits are some of the biggest domain name-based lawsuits we have seen, and it will be interesting to watch how the Chanel case plays out. More than anything, instances like these should drive home to legislators the need to reform the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
Tea Time
Thu, 09/22/2011 - 08:58 — Samantha Demetriou — PermalinkNormally, we refrain from getting too overtly political here on the DomainNameStrategy blog. And as easy as they are to make, I’m going to take the high road and remind myself that Sarah Palin jokes are passé.
But we can’t push it off any longer. The Tea Party has finally reached DomainNameStrategy.
Not the political party itself, but the domain name, TeaParty.com. A rock band in Canada named The Tea Party has owned the domain name since 1993, but since the group effectively split up in 2005 the site has been pretty much dormant. Now the band is considering putting the domain up for auction.
The BusinessWeek article that reported on this featured GoDaddy’s President Warren Adelman, who predicted that TeaParty.com could sell for well over $1 million at auction. Beginning last year, the band has received multiple offers to purchase the domain. With the Tea Party political group at the height of its popularity, now is an ideal time for the band to sell the domain name and get top dollar for it.
The reality of the situation is, certain domain names only have a short life cycle when it comes to their value. A domain like TeaParty.com, which is so closely tied to currently political trends, could plummet in value as soon as the political winds change. If, for example, the Tea Party suffers a staunch defeat during the 2012 elections, the domain will likely fetch a much lower price.
So that leaves the band in a quandary. Do they sell the domain for bank, even though they temporarily reunited for a tour over the summer and are about to tour Australia? And if they do decide to sell, who will they pass this digital gem on to? Will it be a Tea Party member or backer, or perhaps a more mischievous recipient like Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart?
There is, of course, the possibility that the Tea Party political group will have no interest in purchasing a domain name that was previously associated with a rock band – and a Candadian one at that, what with their socialized medicine and all. Remember WhiteHouse.com, the former porn site? A few years back, some speculated that WhiteHouse.com would sell for a seven-figure sum, but it turned out that all serious potential buyers remembered the domain’s porn-hosting past and chose to stay away.
Doppelganger Domains and Email Errors are Cause for Corporate Concern
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 09:40 — Liz Sweezey — PermalinkHere at FairWinds, we are all too familiar with the threats that typosquatting poses to brands in terms of diverting or stealing customers; exposing those customers to scams or malware; diluting brand image; and other potentially harmful activities. But a recent article in Wired describes a new level of typosquatting malfeasance. Researchers built a program that used typographic variations of major companies’ domain names to set up email servers, and collected over 20 gigabytes of misaddressed email over a period of six months.
The intercepted emails all contained what the researchers labeled “doppelganger domains,” named as such because they closely resemble the target domains, with only slight typographic variations. The emails revealed information like employee usernames and passwords; legal documents; trade secrets; and even highly sensitive network information that could easily be exploited by hackers.
The research revealed that as many as 151 of the Fortune 500 could be vulnerable to this type of email-grabbing scheme. Many “doppelganger domains” of the largest U.S. companies have been registered by parties in China, perhaps for corporate spying purposes. In addition to stealing information, cyber criminals could also use these typo domains to stage man-in-the-middle attacks on two companies that are corresponding.
And as is the case with other manifestations of typosquatting, the researchers concluded that companies can avoid this type of scheme by proactively registering and reclaiming typo, or “doppelganger” domains.
