Home

Web 2.0

On Tumbl(e)rs and Web 2.0 Misspellings

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 09:47 — Anna Gayle — Permalink

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.
 

Tags —

Brand Hijacking

Thu, 07/02/2009 - 14:58 — Josh Bourne — Permalink

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported on businesses’ struggle to protect their brands on Twitter. Many are concerned about unauthorized uses of their brand name on popular social media sites—Phil recently wrote a post about usersquatting, the uncertainty of harm that usersquatting inflicts and the ambiguity of enforcement mechanisms to put an end to these infringements—and as a result, many are defensively registering usernames to retain control over their brand. In the WSJ’s article, the sentiment offered by Lee Alexakos, Cedar Fair’s corporate vice president of marketing and advertising, "Our name is our brand, and like any company, we're concerned with protecting that."

This Twitter free for all—unauthorized registration and consumer confusion—can be expected in an unregulated space. Such behavior should get one wondering about how things will be in a newly expanded, unregulated domain name space.
 
The most recent issue of Marketing News briefly mentioned a survey released by the CMO Council about the concerns that marketing executives have over brand hijacking. The third page of this pdf has some information on the survey. Participants were asked to identify the three types of counterfeiting, trademark infringement or online scams that hurt their businesses most. Cybersquatting was the top response at 28.4%. Also on the list was online scams and phishing using hijacked brands and trademarks, at 19.5%. Among respondents who tracked the financial damage involved in this type of hijacking, 39.6% said the cost was greater than 5% of sales and 8.2% said the cost was greater than 20% of sales.

As more and more brands struggle to recover from the damage inflicted by cybersquatters and brandjackers, it becomes increasingly obvious that the best way to deal with these issues is to prevent them from happening in the first place and being choosy about which 3rd party infringements to address and which to ignore.

Tags —

Socializing

Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:47 — Phil Lodico — Permalink

I 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. 

Tags —

Tweet Success?

Tue, 04/07/2009 - 09:44 — Phil Lodico — Permalink

If you read the FairWinds Weekly News Brief, you’ve likely noticed that companies such as Facebook and SecondLife are often in the news in our Web 2.0 section.  The trick is determining whether these new platforms will continue to gain steam and pinpointing how they can be used in a beneficial way.
 
I was hesitant about getting in on the latest online zeitgeist—Twitter—but then I read a post from the CEO of Zappos that made a very good point: texting used to be a novelty and something that seemed a little strange to do, but people got used to it and now it’s a commonplace practice. Maybe Twitter will follow the same path?
 
As BusinessWeek points out, Twitter certainly has potential- it’s free and simple to use, and the site has a powerful search function that can provide a wide audience for interacting with friends, colleagues, and customers alike. However, with everyone Twittering about minutia throughout their day, how does anything stand out amongst all that white noise? Can a business really make an impact tweet by tweet? Maybe that is the point though – it offers a different and more personal way to communicate than traditional business to customer interactions.  Either way, I hope to figure it out. 

I’ve just started on Twitter, so if you are a newbie as well, sign up for an account at www.twitter.com and maybe we can try this out together.
 
To “follow” me on Twitter, my username is lodico.  
 
I’ll do my best to stay within the Twitter culture while keeping followers abreast of interesting news I read, places I go, people I meet, and a few fun facts such as where to find the world’s largest variety of beers.

Tweet Tweet!

Tags —