At 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.
After reading a recent announcement that Verizon will be collaborating with Google to offer Android mobile phones of Verizon’s 3G service network, I checked out the domain verizonandroid.com. What I found when I visited verizonandroid.com was an example of what I have observed as a growing trend – a site hosting pay-per-click ads, but also attempting to insert, through an automated process, minimal and unoriginal content designed to make the site look more like a fair use opinion page than a cybersquatted PPC site. To be clear, this ad is designed purely to produce ad revenue and nothing else. Because this site does not look like the typical PPC site, Internet users (and attorneys tasked with tracking domain name abuse) may think at first glance that the site is somehow legitimate. In the case of verizonandroid.com, however, the infringer used an automated tool to insert a two paragraph July 2009 blog post written by Sean Fallon, an active blogger who writes about technology developments for Gizmodo. Gizmodo’s webpage grants third parties a copyright license to reproduce its material with attribution but only for noncommercial purposes. These kinds of PPC sites, however, are created purely for commercial purposes and are designed to incorporate the minimal content solely as a hook to attract revenue.
Some other examples of this new kind of deceptive PPC site are directv-zone.com, jackdaniels.com.ua, and guitarhero4.com.
By inserting minimal third party content with the advertisements on the landing page, the cybersquatter ensures that Google and other search engines will index the page and pull it up in natural search results. Some additional Internet users will therefore be misdirected to their PPC site through Google’s natural search results in addition to capturing consumers who type the domain name directly into their browser. Cybersquatters may hope that by achieving search engine ranking, they can evade detection by trademark attorneys.
I have seen this trend becoming more popular—perhaps, in addition to trying to avoid detection, cybersquatters are realizing that simply obtaining a domain and filling it with parked PPC ads is not the best way to monetize their sites. Like businesses, they are aware of the value added by generating search engine traffic to a Web site. Web sites dedicated to providing advice and solutions for domainers emphasize the benefit of hosting content in addition to PPC links in order to achieve natural search rankings and drive traffic to the site. In the discussion boards of DNForum.com, experienced domain name owners constantly advise new owners to add more content and develop their sites as a means of more effectively monetizing them, especially when merely parking the site is not generating enough revenue.
Despite the placeholder content, these sites are basically just glorified PPC sites that are merely monetizing and infringing on brand names just like traditional cybersquatted sites. Brand owners need to be aware of the risks they pose: even more so than a landing page filled only with ads, the deceptive use of third party content can easily deceive the average Internet user into believing that the site is somehow legitimate. Brand owners and their attorneys should be vigilant to pursue these deceptive sites and protect consumers from what appears to be the latest scheme in the cybersquatter’s arsenal of deceptive practices.
As we mentioned in our Weekly News Brief, last week, a federal court in California ordered OnlineNIC to pay Verizon $33.15 million in damages for cybersquatting. OnlineNIC, a domain name registrar, had registered over 600 domain names that infringed on the Verizon trademark, which it used to host ad links and pop-under advertisements that earned them revenue. The ruling was initially handed down in December of 2008, but OnlineNIC protested, claiming that the value of the damages [$50,000 per domain] was disproportionate and that only a jury trial could determine what amount of damages would be appropriate. The district court judge rejected both of these claims, and ordered OnlineNIC to pay Verizon’s attorneys’ fees and cost in addition to the $33.15 million in damages.
A law firm that FairWinds has worked with for years once told me that they researched ACPA (Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) damages and found that, on average, judges awarded just $2,000 per domain. That is ridiculous – on a regular basis we find infringing domains that cost our clients well over $100,000 per year. Keep in mind that ACPA provides judges with discretion to award between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain.
The Verizon OnlineNIC ruling represents a huge victory in the ongoing battle against cybersquatters. Sarah Deutsch, Vice President & Associate General Counsel of Verizon and representative in the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA), is a prominent advocate for the elimination of cybersquatting and other abusive practices online. The ruling is great for Verizon and for all companies that have to deal with parasitic infringement. It shows that courts are taking cybersquatting and related offenses seriously, and raises the awareness level of the risks associated with cybersquatting.
However, while this verdict is a bite-back for registrars that allow cybersquatting (which is important – enabling cybersquatting should be punishable just as cybersquatting itself is), it is often difficult to get the cybersquatters themselves. I blogged about this back in December, but there are so few “big-time” cybersquatters who own thousands of names. Most cybersquatters own only a few names, which wouldn’t bring in substantial damages in a court. Given the amount of time and money required to file suit in the U.S. against cybersquatters and how unlikely it is that the damages awarded will be substantial, it often isn’t economically practical to pursue them. As a result brand owners often opt for UDRP, which at best orders a transfer of the domain name to the brand owner—there are no damages awarded through a UDRP.
In order to make the fight against cybersquatting easier, there need to be greater remedies available to trademark holders in the U.S. courts. Raising the threshold of damages would in turn establish more of a deterrent.
In addition, ICANN, as the organization in charge of the domain name system, must provide better guidelines prohibiting infringements and abuses of all kinds. So the question stands – is ICANN going to step up and disaccredit OnlineNic for its activities?