Do two wrongs make a right?
First wrong: As a society we learned many things from the .com bubble burst. In the brand strategy community, many of us saw the downside of using .com in a name. When the bubble bursts, your brand goes further down than the rest. Which is both short-term pain and long-term pain (that's right, no gain in this equation). Naming in this way lends itself to keep you defined to what can be a narrow space. Nobody refers to Amazon as Amazon.com anymore, do they? Which makes sense, and therefore we shouldn’t see too many more .com type names in the new brand name world. One would think.
Second wrong: Never, oh never explicitly describe your product, service or business in your name. Why? Because doing this makes it impossible for you to evolve. Just ask Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing if they are in the mining business anymore. Want another reason? Descriptive names are much less protectable, just ask the publishers of the Duets blog. And, finally, it isn’t more memorable. It merely allows someone to categorize you in their mind, which doesn’t mean they’ll remember your name or anything else about you for that matter.
So, are we led to believe either the rules have changed and two wrongs do make a right? It seems odd that such a proverb would fall to the wayside. Or, perhaps our societal memory is lacking and our desire to describe is greater than our hunger to be distinctive.
Why do I rant? Because Hotels.com, Lending.com, Resorts.com, and many similar names keep showing up. They don't get it.
And if you're wondering, WTF.com is a rant site. Makes perfect sense to me.