Sometimes, knowing who you’re dealing with is useful. In a rare sneak peek into the world of domain investment; a world that end-users of domain names rarely but nevertheless surely must encounter, we have previously explored traditional principles of domain investment. In this article, we will take a closer look at an alternative reason for when the domain you need may be taken and require work and money to pry loose.
In the article “ Why are certain domain names expensive and hard to get?” we explored some legacy ideas of domain name value, where metrics such as search keywords purportedly reveal a domain name’s value.
As an example, the traditional argument goes that if you’re in the travel business, there is no better option than a domain name that simply says ”TRAVEL”. If you do accounting, you can’t do better than ”ACCOUNTING”. And so on. If you by rare chance encounter a domain investor, those are the arguments that you are likely to hear.
However, insights from end-user preferences suggest that a richer narrative may be needed to explain what makes actual naming in the wild tick. And for some domain investors, it’s not the flat and literal label but obviously something entirely different.
The primary clientele for a domain investor are unquestionably professional businesses, and as it happens, it seems that the names adopted by these entities almost always diverge from the traditional domain investment principles mentioned.
A cursory examination of top brands, high-traffic websites, or sectors of interest to venture capital corroborates this observation. Brand names are, almost exclusively in fact, names, and not literal descriptions.
Take an extra second the next time you lay your eyes on a brand name. It won’t be descriptive in the way that legacy domain investment holds dear.
On the contrary, generic search terms related to products or services are rarely considered for name identity selection. In the rare instance of the existence of any literal descriptiveness in business names, there’s usually still a salient twist that creates a relatable and unique persona.
What professional business names to the contrary do seem to align with is the concept of the “spectrum of distinctiveness,” which plots the nature of names within the trademark framework. This spectrum is a subjective map of how exclusive a name would be in context. ”Apple” for instance is not distinctive at all in the context of apples, but impeccably functional as a distinctive (and therefore trademarkable) name for a technology company. Sometimes, name identities are also more or less blank slates completely, and this status is called ”inherently distinctive” in TM lingo. Some examples would be ”Exxon” or ”Kodak” or ”Pepsi”.
This alignment to a spectrum of distinctiveness isn’t happenstance. It arises from the fundamental function of names: to uniquely identify something specific. It’s a universal principle that is not dictated by trademark matters, but intrinsic to all functional names and native to the language at large.
Certain metrics associated with the legacy idea are consequently questioned within the context of the ”brandable” idea. For instance, the notion that search engines favor domains containing search terms has been refuted by none other than Google themselves. The brandable domainer realizes that it is better to incorporate this credible knowledge and iterate than to keep selling false value.
Brandable domainers understand that metrics are symptomatic, not causal. They strive to question the metrics and their relevance and to do away with misconceptions.
Consequently, search metrics are regarded as dubious indicators of value at best. Other legacy metrics aren’t dismissed but re-interpreted within a different framework.
The brandable idea instead hinges on the best practices, ideas, and intuitions that underpin the appeal for name identities. It seeks to discern the features that influence human preference in name selection, factors not yet explicitly measurable but nonetheless existent and significant.
For now, the brandable idea of domain name investment is an active, creative pursuit with a broader scope than available metrics can reveal. It is not an exact science since there are no explicit answers. Nevertheless, different positions along the spectrum of distinctiveness may exhibit different sets of appealing traits.
Here are some overarching guidelines:
1. Conciseness: Appealing business names are typically brief, although exceptions exist.
2. Phonetic Appeal: The name sounds pleasant and is easy to pronounce, adhering to phonetic norms.
3. Semantics: Meaning, even if not overt, imbues names with depth and resonance.
4. Originality: Novelty enhances memorability and trademarkability.
5. Overall Impression: The combination of various elements yields the final effect. A novel but still useful identity may emerge.
6. Applicability: The prospect of real-world application of the name is necessary for a name to ultimately find demand.
In our third article about what a domain investor actually does, we attempt to bridge theory with practice, offering insights into effective domain investment strategies. Read it here: The challenges of domain acquisition.
This is why, even when you think you have found a unique identity to make your own, the domain will still be taken, either by a competitor or a ”brandable” domain investor. This may seem unfair but it’s an effect of a very fair rule. First come, first serve.
Not to worry though. With deep knowledge about the domain name aftermarket, and with support from the global AWA network in legal matters, Dotkeeper knows when the domain name must be purchased, what a fair price for it is, and when there to the contrary may be cybersquatting involved.
In case you realize that you need to get a domain name and also realize that the domain name aftermarket is not your area of expertise, we will happily assist.
Read next article
The challenges of domain acquisition