BOOKMARK
PRINTIn 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.
Google Rolls the Domain Recovery Dice
Mon, 01/09/2012 - 14:14 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkBack in September, we published a Perspectives paper about a survey scam that targeted social networks: when Internet users mistyped the domain names of popular social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others into their browsers’ address bars, they were led to a website that was formatted similarly to the target homepage, but displayed a survey in place of the expected content. The surveys promised prizes for answering questions and – surprise, surprise – never delivered on those prizes. Instead, they stole users’ valuable personal information.
In the study, we noted that shortly before we published, Facebook had filed a lawsuit against 25 defendants over 104 different domain names, many of which we identified as hosting this survey scam. Now, according to Fusible, Google has come out on top in its own struggle against survey scammers. The search engine giant, and owner of YouTube, filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint with the National Arbitration Forum over the domain names youtbe.com, youtub.com, youtue.com, youube.com, and yutube.com, all of which had popped up in our study as hosting the survey scam.
Recovering these domains was by no means a bad move on Google’s part, but it amounts to a drop in the bucket: in total, we had identified 81 typos of YouTube.com that had been squatted to host this scam, many of which receive extremely high volumes of traffic (by our calculations, a single domain receives over 19 million visitors annually). These five domains receive fewer than 300,000 visitor per year, accounting for only 0.72 percent of the total traffic that all the squatted Youtube.com typos in our study receive. Conversely, if Google had targeted the top five typos that receive the most visitors, it could have recovered over 90 percent of traffic, or more than 35 million annual visitors, that are exposed to these survey scams. That would have gone a long way in protecting YouTube’s users, and in turn would have stemmed a significant portion of the damage that these scams have inflicted on the YouTube brand.
But on the bright side, Google is clearly aware of the survey scam problem, and the UDRP Panelist reached a fairly open-and-shut decision. These two factors bode well for the company, should it decide to pursue more of these typosquatted domains.
Knowing When to Say No
Thu, 10/13/2011 - 15:38 — Steve Levy — PermalinkOn certain occasions here at FairWinds, one of the best things we can do for our clients is tell them no. I’m specifically referring to recovering domain names via UDRP. Not every domain name is a good candidate for a UDRP complaint, because while the UDRP is a great system, it does have a limited scope. And sometimes, we need to find different ways to recover key domain names for our clients.
This week, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Panel reached a decision over the domain names goggle.com, goggle.net and goggle.org, in which Google was the Complainant. Both Google and the Respondent prepared excellent arguments and exhibits – so much so that in the written decision, the Panelists actually complimented both parties, saying, “The evidence and arguments relied on by the Parties, relating to the Policy, are extensive and ably done.”
So why wasn’t Google successful? Because before the Complaint was filed, Google and the Respondent has entered into a business agreement. This means that the dispute over goggle.com, goggle.net and goggle.org was actually a business or a contractual dispute, not just a dispute over the rights to a domain name. The Panel determined that it was not within its purview to interpret that agreement. These kinds of issues fall outside of the scope of the UDRP.
We’ve seen this before, where Complainants file a UDRP complaint when they should really be filing a commercial lawsuit, a claim under the ACPA, or another type of legal action. In other cases, even legal action is not an ideal choice. The key to a successful domain name recovery strategy is knowing all of the options available, and picking the most appropriate course of action for each unique case.
Spoiling the Surprise
Fri, 04/08/2011 - 15:46 — Phil Lodico — Permalink
It started out by taking on established search engines back in the late nineties. Then it decided to take on Facebook and other social networks with its Buzz feature. And now, Google is looking to take on digital music behemoth iTunes with a new, cloud-based music service.
Various tech outlets, including CNET and TechCrunch, have been writing about Google’s latest move for the past few months, but the company has been pretty tight-lipped about the details of the new service.
Just this morning, TechCrunch announced in a post that Google has recently registered a bunch of domain names related to both music and clouds – fitting, since this will be a cloud-based music service. According to the post, Google registered GoogleBass.com, GoogleTenor.com, GoogleAlto.com and GoogleSoprano.com, as well as GoogleNebula.com, GoogleThunder.com and GoogleLightning.com.
Now, simply registering these domains is not concrete evidence that Google plans to use any of those names for its new service. Loyal FairWinds readers will remember back to early last year, when Dell and Microsoft began referring to their then-new tablet products as “slates” because they thought Apple was planning to call its tablet the iSlate, based on the fact that Apple had acquired iSlate.com. As we all know, Apple decided to go in a totally different direction.
While I wouldn’t put money on any of these names just yet, it is still possible that Google will end up using one of them. In order to avoid this kind of speculation, or to keep the details of a big launch under wraps, companies should consider going incognito to register domains for a new product or service. By that, I don’t mean simply using a proxy service at a corporate registrar; companies should consider using retail registrars to register the domains under a name that is not directly associated with the company, or using that registrar’s proxy service. Then, once the new product or service launches, they can transfer and update their domain names.
Playing with the Cards We’ve been Dealt
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 14:50 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkA recent post in Advertising Age’s Digital Next blog ponders the question, is Google biased? Well, not really pondered, per se – the author took Google’s bias as a given fact. And in the fact that Google uses incredibly complex algorithms to rank its search results and keeps those algorithms secret as proprietary information, the author is right. We don’t fully understand how Google ranks its results. But ultimately, that’s not a bad thing.
We’ve written before about the importance of ranking high among Google’s search results. As a consultancy that specializes in online findability, we understand that search engines are an important way in which many consumers access content online. Companies invest a great deal of time and money into optimizing their brand sites to rank highly, and investing in valuable, keyword-rich domains to increase rank for a greater number of search terms. All of this is done in the goal of earning more spots than their competitors on page one. So in theory, it would be great to know how Google ranks its results, on any given day, in order to maximize SEO effectiveness.
Depending on what study you read, or which set of data you choose to examine, Google is depicted as either highly biased, purposefully manipulating the rankings of its search results, or highly benevolent. There are myriad studies and articles arguing both sides. Additionally, there is no proof that Google’s bias is necessarily undesirable – it may also serve to prevent developers with nefarious intentions from gaming the rankings system in order to spread malware or misinformation.
It boils down to this: whether it is biased or not has not prevented Google from continuing to dominate the search market; it is still the first place most Internet users turn when performing a search. It functions as a pseudo-monopoly, and under its own self-imposed ethos of “Do No Evil,” it should attempt to serve its users in the best way possible.
To reiterate, though, to the extent that we do not understand all of Google’s algorithms, we cannot definitively say if its results are biased or not. So for the time being, it seems like it would be more productive to accept Google as it is and work to make sure our pages rank highly given the tools available and strategies that have been proven to work. In the end, only white hat SEO strategies are scalable and predictable. This means that having quality, unique content hosted by good domain names with high-quality websites linking to that content will continue to pay big dividends whether you believe Google is biased or not.
Let’s Not Jump the Google Gun Just Yet
Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:36 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkBecause ICANN’s new gTLD program will open up the domain name system on a scale that we have never seen before, there has been a great deal of speculation surrounding the implications of the program and the new domain names that it will produce. For example, some have claimed that domain names with new gTLD extensions will rank higher in Google that domains with traditional gTLDs like .COM.
I have to question the accuracy of this claim, and people’s readiness to accept it as fact as opposed to speculation. First and foremost, Google ranks pages according to a proprietary formula that rates a web page’s importance based on the number and quality of outside pages that link to it. This “page rank” is combined with a variety of other factors, including how often the search term (or its synonyms) appears in the page, whether the search term appears in the title, and whether the term appears in the URL of the page, to give each page a score. The pages with the highest scores appear at the top of Google’s results.
Presumably, people who assume that sites hosted on new gTLD domains will rank higher in Google believe this to be true because Google does account for the presence of the search term in the URL of a page in determining the page’s rank. This is why generic keyword domains have the potential to rank highly in searches. For gTLD domains, there will be an additional place for keyword (branded or generic) – to the right of the dot. So given what we know about Google’s ranking system, new gTLD domains could outrank traditional domains in certain searches. But so many other factors come into play that in Google’s ranking that it is difficult to make this claim with absolute certainty.
Moreover, there is no way for us to know what Google has planned for dealing with new gTLDs. Google is obviously highly innovative, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the company adjusted its search and ranking algorithms to account for the presence of new gTLD domains. But, we should not forget that .COM “challengers” are not new and keyword extensions like .TRAVEL have been around for years with little effect. I challenge anybody to show me a .TRAVEL domain that ranks well for popular travel-related search phrases.
Could New TLDs Really Catch On?
Fri, 12/03/2010 - 15:00 — Phil Lodico — Permalink
As many of us are preparing our comments on ICANN’s latest new TLD guidebook, many companies are also trying to determine if they will actually apply for a new TLD if they arrive as scheduled by ICANN in May of 2011.
Even though many of the previously launched “new TLDs” did not bring about a meaningful shift in online consumer behavior, there is a shared concern among digital executives over not knowing what will happen with this launch, or what the appropriate action will be.
Imagine if Facebook is one company that applies for a new TLD in the first round. It might make sense; Facebook has had its fair share of username and security issues and Facebook users spend more time on facebook.com than any other site. The possibility of creating .FACEBOOK domains for each user, such as PhilLodico.facebook, might be interesting to Facebook and it would likely be valued by users as well.
Facebook alone has over 500 million users. That would translate to 500 million new domain names; tripling the number of domain names in existence overnight.
Now imagine adding in other Internet powerhouses like Google, Microsoft and Apple, and big brands like Coca-Cola, Disney and others. These companies have enormous reach in terms of customer touch points, not to mention budgets with which – if they wanted to – they could try to shift consumer behavior.
Between Facebook’s grassroots consumer behavior shift and a possible direct marketing program by brand leaders, there is no question; there is a chance that new TLDs will catch on.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could sit on the side and wait and see what other companies do? To see if Facebook does this? To see if 500 million new domain names are registered and to see what consumers begin to do. It would. But ICANN isn’t necessarily going to allow that to happen.
The biggest risk that new TLDs (if approved) present is that we only know that there will be one window that opens. The last time a window opened was seven years ago. What if ICANN gets overwhelmed with this launch? What if it takes years to process the 500 applications that they are talking about possibly receiving? What if ICANN is prevented from moving forward with another window because of
abuse found in the space? What if it is 3, 5, or 7 years until the next window opens?
What happens to the brand owners that decided to wait on the sideline if new TLDs begin to catch on? Those that did apply will have the ultimate competitive advantage while those who didn’t will be sitting on the bench waiting for their chance to play catch up.
While I believe there is still an opportunity to alter if and how new TLDs will be released, this risk of being sidelined is one we all need to take seriously. And as ICANN has shown us, we need to start thinking about this soon.
Cerf-ing Our Way into the Next 25 Years of the Internet: A (Steve) Case Study
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:00 — Liz Sweezey — Permalink
Yesterday, Yvette Miller, Sam Demetriou and I ventured out to Tysons Corner, VA for an event titled “The Future of the Internet.” Presented by business news company Bisnow, the event featured Vint Cerf, regarded as “the Father of the Internet” and now Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, and Steve Case, co-founder of AOL.
The event was laid back, and ran more as a conversation than formal presentation. During the first half, moderator Tony Lupo, a Partner at Arent Fox, conducted a casual interview of Don Rippert, CTO at Accenture, and Vint Cerf. For the second half, Mark Bisnow of Bisnow chatted with Steve Case. The overarching theme of both discussions focused on the speakers’ insights into how the Internet continues to evolve, and the role it will play for users, businesses and society in the coming years. It was an incredible opportunity to listen to what these men, who have been so influential in how the Internet has taken shape and become an integral part of our lives, think about the current state of the Internet and the vast possibilities for its future.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion, I think, was Steve Case’s opinion about the way the Internet has changed democracy in our society. I won’t quote him, but generally, he does not believe the Internet has necessarily made the democratic process better, but rather that it has created more political “noise.” Having to sift through this excess information of varying quality makes participating in the process more complicated. This viewpoint contrasts with popular opinion that the digital age has made democracy more accessible to many Americans.
I penned a blog post on Election Day in 2008. Two years later, I think most people would agree that the Internet has dramatically changed the way people look at politics and voting. The 2008 presidential election will go down in history as a turning point in how candidates conduct their campaigns. And beyond campaigning, the public can continue to track officeholders’ incumbencies via Twitter and Facebook. To illustrate, a friend of mine works as the “New Media Director” for an Illinois Congressman. Such a position did not exist even five years ago. Good or bad, like it or not, the Internet is having, and will have, an impact on the democratic process.
Another part of yesterday’s event that really impressed me was Vint Cerf’s attitude. He was genuinely impressed with the amazing ways developers have used the Internet’s capabilities to create new applications that make our lives better.
Overall, I found the event fascinating and was glad I had the chance to attend. It reminded me of why I got into this business in the first place.
No Running Around in Circles
Wed, 09/08/2010 - 09:49 — Samantha Demetriou — Permalink
Every day on my walk home from the FairWinds office in Georgetown to my apartment in Chinatown, I pass through Thomas Circle, one of Washington, D.C.’s many traffic circles. For those who know the city, it is located at the intersection of Massachusetts Ave., NW and 14th St., NW. This is a picture of the northwest part of the circle.
On the southeast corner of Thomas Circle and Mass Ave., there is a retirement community called the Residences at Thomas Circle. I normally don’t give the building much thought, but the other night I happened to look up at its sign and noticed a domain name – the Residences owns and advertises the domain name ThomasCircle.com.
There are a lot of other residences in the area surrounding Thomas Circle, mostly apartment buildings, and I noticed that very few display a domain name on any of their signs. Most simply include a phone number. As someone who has moved twice in the past two years, I can say from experience that an intuitive domain name is much more useful and easier to remember than a phone number when searching for apartments. I didn’t visit a single building without checking it out online first.
In addition to sticking in the minds of potential future residents, ThomasCircle.com offers another advantage: it allows the Residences at Thomas Circle to monopolize the physical space in the online space. Essentially, owning ThomasCircle.com allows the building owner to own Thomas Circle online. Whether an Internet user types the domain directly into the browser bar or searches for “Thomas Circle” in a search engine like Google or Bing, he or she will encounter the Residences at Thomas Circle. This has a distinct branding benefit, as well. By owning Thomas Circle online, the Residences at Thomas Circle communicate to potential residents that this community is the place to live if you’re a senior citizen in that neighborhood.
Lead Generation from Domain Names
Mon, 02/01/2010 - 10:11 — Josh Bourne — PermalinkAt the heart of online marketing is the goal of attracting visitors to Web sites and engaging with them in ways that deliver lasting and memorable impressions. There are a variety of elements that go into an effective online marketing campaign, including search engine marketing but also radio, print, outdoor, and TV offline to drive impressions online. Often, companies direct a small portion of their efforts and budgets to domain names and search engine strategies like search engine optimization (SEO).
Search engine strategies like SEO function best when paired with strong keyword domain names. It’s well known that Google and Bing reward developed keyword domains that have “search love”—in other words, Google and Bing give higher ranks to domain names that contain terms consistent with the search terms entered by Internet users—and for this reason a brand can achieve a higher page rank using keyword domain names. Try a search for “meals” in Google sometime and you’re likely to find Nestlé in the first position with their meals.com site. However, if you Google “sauce,” you won’t see a Unilever brand on page one of Google’s search results. Yet, Unilever owns sauce.com and points it to the Ragú Web site. Why does Meals.com rank so highly while Sauce.com does not? Domain names that are set up as simple redirects will not be indexed separately by search engines. This is why meals.com is on page one for “meals” while sauce.com is not on page one for “sauce” – Nestlé built a stand alone site on meals.com while Ragú pointed sauce.com to another site. For a brand owner to take full advantage of a keyword domain name’s ability to capture both direct (type-in) and search traffic, the domain name must be utilized as a standalone site. Keyword domains that are properly developed will capture organic traffic on a reoccurring basis at nearly no cost.
There are other ways to drive up traffic numbers by adjusting domain name strategy. By reviewing and making small adjustments to its domain name portfolio, Verizon was able to generate 24 million unique visitors to its Web sites in a 12-month period. That increase in traffic was achieved without any additional search engine marketing tactics; Verizon simply redirected carefully selected names it owned and recovered valuable domain names that receive type-in traffic and pointed them to branded content, and ultimately drove millions of consumers to its sites – without the incremental costs associated with paid search clicks. An updated case study on the effects of Verizon’s domain name strategy will be coming soon.
In many instances, businesses do not set aside a portion of their marketing budgets to maximize the benefits from very active domain management because they are not aware of the benefits it can provide in terms of lead generation and cost savings.
However, consider how domain name typos are one area where companies often lose valuable traffic – if Internet users mistype the domain of a company’s Web site into the address bar, they can be led to sites containing Pay-Per-Click ads, malware, or in some cases, even to the Web site of the company’s competitor. It is often surprising how much traffic businesses are losing to typos—we recently uncovered 47 million initial impressions one company was losing annually due to typos of its name. Imagine a scenario where the top typos for a brand receive 5 million (about 1/10 of the prior example) unique visitors per year. Considering the fact that on average, businesses are willing to pay approximately $2.00 per impression, unregistered typo domains cost the company in question $10 million per year, or more than $833,000 per month in lost marketing benefit.
When you look at the hard numbers, it becomes obvious that search engine tactics alone cannot generate the maximum number of online leads. Instead, SEO, SEM and domain strategies must be combined to optimize results.
