Branding - including .com in logo/name?

6 Sep 2007 - 12:20pm
7 years ago
21 replies
1656 reads
tdellaringa
2006

Hi folks,

This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"

I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.

I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
your opinion?

Tom

Comments

6 Sep 2007 - 12:38pm
Mark Schraad
2006

If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.

Mark

On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
>on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
>a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
>
>I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
>because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
>that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
>web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
>and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
>
>I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
>do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
>your opinion?
>
>Tom

6 Sep 2007 - 12:44pm
bminihan
2007

I would say it's unnecessary to include the .com unless it's the "web version" of a brick and mortar store, although the fact that it's a web site pretty clearly shows that. Another possible (but probably not justifiable) reason to include it would be to differentiate "DirtyChicken.com" from "Dirty Chicken Fast Food", but then you get into copyright and trademark rules they should have thought of earlier...

Some disadvantages to tying the site to a technical constraint (.com is really a technical naming convention for his "place on the web") is that such things change over time, and are meaningless to a lot of people, except in a very generic sense. From experience at a startup long past, it can be annoyingly confusing to figure out what to call yourself when you answer the phone, or what you want visitors to say when they tell a friend about it..."It's DirtyChicken dot com" takes longer, whereas "It's DirtyChicken" probably implies that sticking a ".com" on the end will take you there.

The only place it seems required is for sites like "Del.icio.us".

- Bryan
http://www.bryanminihan.com

---- Tom Dell'Aringa <pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
> on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
> a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
>
> I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
> because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
> that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
> web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
> and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
>
> I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
> do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
> your opinion?
>
> Tom
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

--

6 Sep 2007 - 12:49pm
Anne Hjortshoj
2007

I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.

To me, [company name].com smacks of "dot com era," i.e., a company
that hasn't necessarily thought through its business model and is just
throwing itself out there as a web site. Which isn't necessarily how
it is, of course, but that's the association that springs to mind for
me.

Also, the .com appendage tends to mess up a logo, I think.

2 cents,

-Anne

On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
> >
> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
> >
> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
> >your opinion?
> >
> >Tom
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
Anne Hjortshoj | anne.hj at gmail.com | www.annehj.com

6 Sep 2007 - 1:05pm
Ty Hatch
2007

To me, it does more to legitimize the business by not using the .com
as part of the logo. It may be an online only service/app, but .com
pigeonholes them and eventually they'll want to remove it anyway as
they're going to want to appear more legit to potential investors.
Then there's the left over .com bust stigma for using .com in a
company name...

I'd recommend they not use it.

-ty

On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Tom Dell'Aringa wrote:

Hi folks,

This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is
working
on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their
logo is
a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"

I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo -
particularly
because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems
to me
that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct
from the
web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are
Amazon
and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.

I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without
the .com, what
do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by
losing it in
your opinion?

Tom
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

6 Sep 2007 - 12:59pm
tdellaringa
2006

On 9/6/07, Anne Hjortshoj <anne.hj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.
>
> To me, [company name].com smacks of "dot com era," i.e., a company
> that hasn't necessarily thought through its business model and is just
> throwing itself out there as a web site. Which isn't necessarily how
> it is, of course, but that's the association that springs to mind for
> me.

That's one reason why I am against it. And I agree with the statement of
tying the business name to a technical constraint.

Also, the .com appendage tends to mess up a logo, I think.

Also agreed. It tends to be an unnecessary visual distraction, and it's
difficult to work it in well and have it look aesthetically pleasing.

6 Sep 2007 - 1:00pm
SemanticWill
2007

Agreed - Foobar "dot-com" is so 1999

On 9/6/07, Anne Hjortshoj <anne.hj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.
>
> To me, [company name].com smacks of "dot com era," i.e., a company
> that hasn't necessarily thought through its business model and is just
> throwing itself out there as a web site. Which isn't necessarily how
> it is, of course, but that's the association that springs to mind for
> me.
>
> Also, the .com appendage tends to mess up a logo, I think.
>
> 2 cents,
>
> -Anne
>
> On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
> > If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to
> differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it
> can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <
> pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hi folks,
> > >
> > >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is
> working
> > >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their
> logo is
> > >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
> > >
> > >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo -
> particularly
> > >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems
> to me
> > >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from
> the
> > >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are
> Amazon
> > >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
> > >
> > >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com,
> what
> > >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing
> it in
> > >your opinion?
> > >
> > >Tom
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Anne Hjortshoj | anne.hj at gmail.com | www.annehj.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
~ we

-------------------------------------
n: will evans
t: user experience architect
e: wkevans4 at gmail.com

-------------------------------------

6 Sep 2007 - 1:16pm
Joseph Selbie
2007

Tom,

I think there are lot of important questions that need to be answered before
you could decide. How well known or well funded is DirtyChicken? The answer
to that allows you to answer the next question -- how well can they market
and advertise in order to render .com unnecessary? If the answer to that is
positive then I think they could go without it.

But if they are not funded well enough to really own the space they are in,
then adding .com to the logo will help them communicate to potential
customers who they are and where to find them. A company can always drop the
.com later (witness Amazon). If DC achieves good brand recognition they
could do the same -- but when starting out to build a brand I think it could
still be useful to include the .com.

This would be especially true if it is a B2C play. For a B2B I might argue
that .com is unnecessary. How a B2B reaches its potential customers is
usually very different than a B2C.

Joseph Selbie
Founder, CEO Tristream
http://www.tristream.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Dell'Aringa
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:21 AM
To: IxDA Discuss
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Branding - including .com in logo/name?

Hi folks,

This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"

I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.

I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
your opinion?

Tom
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

6 Sep 2007 - 1:27pm
tdellaringa
2006

On 9/6/07, Joseph Selbie <jselbie at tristream.com> wrote:
>
> I think there are lot of important questions that need to be answered
> before
> you could decide.

Good points, Joe. I can say that they are a successful offline company in
event management. They are essentially building a portal where they can
allow their clients to use the services of DC they already use, but in a
more efficient manner, and it lets them do additional things. They have
named this portal something different than their company name, but it is
associated with their normal name.

So they will be offering this to basically their existing clientele. Their
clients are hotels which are already pretty tight with my client.

I guess I'm thinking of it similar to when new online tools come out from
people/companies I know. For example, when Crazy Egg came out, it was
branded without the .com. When they are talked about in web dev circles,
nobody says "Crazy Egg.com" it's always just "Crazy Egg". It seems like if
it's .com, it's assumed as such already.

And I like their logo - and it would be less appealing with the .com
attached to it. (See here <http://crazyegg.com/>)

6 Sep 2007 - 1:45pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

> I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.

Have you ever heard somebody refer to "YouTube" as "YouTube.com"? I
believe we are finally getting past the point when the company name
has to indicate that it is web-based.

Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

Design is a process -
an intimate collaboration between
engineers, designers, and clients.

- Henry Dreyfuss

6 Sep 2007 - 1:02pm
White, Jeff
2007

I see a couple of other possible reasons to keep the URL in the logotype,
not sure I agree with them, but food for thought if nothing else.

1. Amazon is a bad example for this, but let's just say they couldn't get
amazon.com, but went with amazoninc.com or whatever. This is the case with
lots businesses. Adding the .com to the end of the logotype lets the
consumer of the logo quickly know where they can find out more, and that the
URL is exactly the same as the company name, just with .com at the end.
Eliminates the possible question: "now what is amazon's web address?". Also
decreases time to read the logo + URL, possibly increases brand awareness,
etc.

2. It eliminates the need to list a separate URL - more advertising is built
right into the logo. This has lots of implications like fitting more info
into small ad spots, etc.

That said, I don't really like it for no other reason than it feels cheap &
looks bad to me. But, those are a couple of arguments for keeping it. Also,
I would guess lots of folks just google the company name regardless of
whether the URL is somewhere in the logo or not.

On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>
> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to
> differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it
> can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <
> pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is
> working
> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo
> is
> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
> >
> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo -
> particularly
> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to
> me
> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from
> the
> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are
> Amazon
> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
> >
> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com,
> what
> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it
> in
> >your opinion?
> >
> >Tom
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

6 Sep 2007 - 2:06pm
Mark Schraad
2006

I had my branding strategy hat on, not my user, clarity, usability hat. ;-)

On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:49PM, "Anne Hjortshoj" <anne.hj at gmail.com> wrote:
>I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.
>
>To me, [company name].com smacks of "dot com era," i.e., a company
>that hasn't necessarily thought through its business model and is just
>throwing itself out there as a web site. Which isn't necessarily how
>it is, of course, but that's the association that springs to mind for
>me.
>
>Also, the .com appendage tends to mess up a logo, I think.
>
>2 cents,
>
>-Anne
>
>On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Hi folks,
>> >
>> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
>> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
>> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
>> >
>> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
>> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
>> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
>> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
>> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
>> >
>> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
>> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
>> >your opinion?
>> >
>> >Tom
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
>> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>>
>
>
>--
>Anne Hjortshoj | anne.hj at gmail.com | www.annehj.com
>
>

6 Sep 2007 - 2:10pm
Mark Schraad
2006

All of what has been said is true, and I agree from an image perspective relative to this group, but remember... the majority of consumers and even investors do not have the inside accumen regarding the web. Company.com is not so 90's to say, the average AOL user. When it comes to brainding you MUST think specifically about your target market and move you head out of your own domain.

On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 02:02PM, "Jeff White" <jwhite31 at gmail.com> wrote:
>I see a couple of other possible reasons to keep the URL in the logotype,
>not sure I agree with them, but food for thought if nothing else.
>
>1. Amazon is a bad example for this, but let's just say they couldn't get
>amazon.com, but went with amazoninc.com or whatever. This is the case with
>lots businesses. Adding the .com to the end of the logotype lets the
>consumer of the logo quickly know where they can find out more, and that the
>URL is exactly the same as the company name, just with .com at the end.
>Eliminates the possible question: "now what is amazon's web address?". Also
>decreases time to read the logo + URL, possibly increases brand awareness,
>etc.
>
>2. It eliminates the need to list a separate URL - more advertising is built
>right into the logo. This has lots of implications like fitting more info
>into small ad spots, etc.
>
>That said, I don't really like it for no other reason than it feels cheap &
>looks bad to me. But, those are a couple of arguments for keeping it. Also,
>I would guess lots of folks just google the company name regardless of
>whether the URL is somewhere in the logo or not.
>
>On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to
>> differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it
>> can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <
>> pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Hi folks,
>> >
>> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is
>> working
>> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo
>> is
>> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
>> >
>> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo -
>> particularly
>> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to
>> me
>> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from
>> the
>> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are
>> Amazon
>> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
>> >
>> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com,
>> what
>> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it
>> in
>> >your opinion?
>> >
>> >Tom
>>
>

6 Sep 2007 - 1:49pm
Joseph Selbie
2007

Tom,

>From everything you say, it sounds like .com is unnecessary. Happy
designing!

Joseph Selbie

Founder, CEO Tristream

http://www.tristream.com

From: Tom Dell'Aringa [mailto:pixelmech at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Joseph Selbie
Cc: IxDA Discuss
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Branding - including .com in logo/name?

On 9/6/07, Joseph Selbie <jselbie at tristream.com> wrote:

I think there are lot of important questions that need to be answered before
you could decide.

Good points, Joe. I can say that they are a successful offline company in
event management. They are essentially building a portal where they can
allow their clients to use the services of DC they already use, but in a
more efficient manner, and it lets them do additional things. They have
named this portal something different than their company name, but it is
associated with their normal name.

So they will be offering this to basically their existing clientele. Their
clients are hotels which are already pretty tight with my client.

I guess I'm thinking of it similar to when new online tools come out from
people/companies I know. For example, when Crazy Egg came out, it was
branded without the .com. When they are talked about in web dev circles,
nobody says "Crazy Egg.com" it's always just "Crazy Egg". It seems like if
it's .com, it's assumed as such already.

And I like their logo - and it would be less appealing with the .com
attached to it. ( See here <http://crazyegg.com/> )

6 Sep 2007 - 3:25pm
mtumi
2004

If they ever want to have an international presence and additionally
register local domains (.co.uk, .co.jp, etc), you'll be in a bit of a
bind

(i didn't look at the site, so the internationalization of
dirtychicken might be laughable. actually with a name like that,
they are probably bound to run into some naming issues in an
international market regardless.... :-) )

actually, I just peeked, and dirtychicken.com gets filtered by my
firewall as potentially containing sexual content. :-)

(that's another naming issue for them, BTW, if they expect people to
access this site from work)

MT

6 Sep 2007 - 3:33pm
jayeffvee
2007

Glad you said that. It's mostly not an issue in any other country
except in the UK, because there, one never knows whether one should type
[company name].com or [company name].co.uk. Pretty much in other
countries, people know to type .jp or .fr or .de -- but between the US
and the UK, it's ambiguous.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Tuminello
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:26 PM
To: IxDA list
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Branding - including .com in logo/name?

If they ever want to have an international presence and additionally
register local domains (.co.uk, .co.jp, etc), you'll be in a bit of a
bind

6 Sep 2007 - 3:35pm
SemanticWill
2007

Dude,
Your firewall is filtering the address because it thinks you are trying to
view poultry porn.

On 9/6/07, Michael Tuminello <mt at motiontek.com> wrote:
>
>
> If they ever want to have an international presence and additionally
> register local domains (.co.uk, .co.jp, etc), you'll be in a bit of a
> bind
>
> (i didn't look at the site, so the internationalization of
> dirtychicken might be laughable. actually with a name like that,
> they are probably bound to run into some naming issues in an
> international market regardless.... :-) )
>
> actually, I just peeked, and dirtychicken.com gets filtered by my
> firewall as potentially containing sexual content. :-)
>
> (that's another naming issue for them, BTW, if they expect people to
> access this site from work)
>
> MT
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
~ we

-------------------------------------
n: will evans
t: user experience architect
e: wkevans4 at gmail.com

-------------------------------------

6 Sep 2007 - 2:06pm
Chad Mortensen
2007

There are a couple reason's why you may want to keep the .com, maybe not for
the established event management company but for general discussion.
1. If this is solely an online business.
2. If you are going to be doing any offline marketing for this business.

By using the .com in the name it is automatically recognized as being a
website and somebody could find the business from knowing the name alone. If
the company was solely called Funky Chicken I wouldn't know whether to look
them up in the phone book or google.

Chad

On 9/6/07, Jack Moffett <jmoffett at inmedius.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.
>
> Have you ever heard somebody refer to "YouTube" as "YouTube.com"? I
> believe we are finally getting past the point when the company name
> has to indicate that it is web-based.
>
> Jack
>
>
> Jack L. Moffett
> Interaction Designer
> inmedius
> 412.459.0310 x219
> http://www.inmedius.com
>
>
> Design is a process -
> an intimate collaboration between
> engineers, designers, and clients.
>
> - Henry Dreyfuss
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

6 Sep 2007 - 3:52pm
White, Jeff
2007

haha! sweet. I'm just glad I'm not the only one. Perhaps we should start
another discussion list for this "special interest group". For the record:
I'm just kidding.

Happy Thursday, IxDA :-)

On 9/6/07, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dude,
> Your firewall is filtering the address because it thinks you are trying to
> view poultry porn.
>
>
>

6 Sep 2007 - 4:47pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:35 PM, W Evans wrote:

> Dude,
> Your firewall is filtering the address because it thinks you are
> trying to
> view poultry porn.

That's just fowl.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

Questions about whether design
is necessary or affordable
are quite beside the point:
design is inevitable.

The alternative to good design
is bad design, not no design at all.

- Douglas Martin

15 Sep 2007 - 8:36am
Manuel R. Vargas
2007

I would have to disagree with Anne's disagreement. Adding a .com to the logo of a company can empathize that the business is run through the web as the main -or only channel-. It's not only an association with the .com era.

I give you an example: Sterling is a cheap-airline company (www.sterling.dk). Its logo includes the .dk (suffix for Danish sites) as a reference that clients should primarily look for cheap tickets on their website. You can also find the same for easyjet.com and ryanair.com, two other cheap-arilines.

Manuel

>I disagree. Flickr never used the .com in its name, for example.
>To me, [company name].com smacks of "dot com era," i.e., a company
>hat hasn't necessarily thought through its business model and is just
>throwing itself out there as a web site. Which isn't necessarily how
>it is, of course, but that's the association that springs to mind for
>me.

>Also, the .com appendage tends to mess up a logo, I think.
>Anne

On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is working
> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo is
> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
> >
> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo - particularly
> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to me
> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from the
> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are Amazon
> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
> >
> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com, what
> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it in
> >your opinion?
> >
> >Tom
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
Anne Hjortshoj | anne.hj at gmail.com | www.annehj.com
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

16 Sep 2007 - 2:48am
Joe Pemberton
2007

Rule 1: Don't saddle the brand with menial stuff (make it timeless)

Put it in a different light and look back a decade. Sure there are successful companies called 1-800-CONTACTS and 1-800-FLOWERS but those brands will never elevate themselves above their phone numbers. They were successful with this tactic (memorability), but their age is showing.

I'm not saying .com will become obsolete, just don't cheapen the brand this way.

Rule 2: Rule 1 requires making sure your company has a dot-com address. (Sure Last.fm and de.licio.us are standout exceptions.)

Syndicate content Get the feed