The recent rebranding of Snapchat to Snap, and the assorted “upgrade” of the corporate domain to Snap.com, generated positive commentary in the domain community.
Going from Snapchat.com to Snap.com might seem like an upgrade at first. But in my opinion, it’s a brand downgrade.
Old school domain investors follow a specific paradigm: dictionary word domains are the holy grail of every business.
For the most part, this general rule of thumb is self-fulfilling, as it sets the price of dictionary word domains quite high.
The downside, is that there are many dictionary words that are far too generic to be turned into brands, and trademarks. Many won’t even rank on their own in search engines, unless the TLD is affixed to the search.
If you’re looking for “Snapchat” you are certain to land on one of their services, and nowhere else. Search for “Snap” however, and you’ll end up in a large variety of different destinations.
In Florida, there’s SnapOrlando.com that pops at the top search results, and it’s an art gallery.
In Australia, it’s Snap.com.au, a web and print design firm.
In the UK, the top Google result is Snap Assessment and Education.
German searches will also return Snap!, a German eurodance group from the late 80s. Here’s the top YouTube video for “snap”.
Snapchat claims that they had to rebrand, as they are expanding from simply a chat program, to video-recording sunglasses, and more. That’s always tempting to do, but it’s actually a dilution of a brand that has become a household name.
“Snapchat Glasses” would be a great extension of the existing Snapchat brand, as it appeals to video recording fans. “Snapchat Emoji” would be another such example of expanding the brand into chat add-ons. Even “Snapchat Fashionware” would be perfect for any Snapchat branded clothing, if that were an upcoming expansion.
On a separate note, Snap.chat is not owned by the company now known as “Snap.” There are hundreds of other “Snap” gTLDs and ccTLDs, each one with their own generic purpose and use.
The Snapchat brand is also a suggestive trademark that enjoys protection due to its distinctiveness.
It’s on a par with fanciful trademarks, such as Xerox or Kodak.
Any future “Snap” marks would most likely be descriptive, requiring the acquisition of a secondary meaning. As of now, there is no such association between the word “snap” and the services provided by Snapchat. The brand is getting rebooted, and on the same level with every other “Snap” business.
When opting to use a generic, dictionary word as a brand, one can run into other problems: positive words, such as “Hottie,” can often have an alternate meaning with specific overtones.
In my opinion, the decision by Snapchat to rebrand was bold but dangerous. Only time will tell whether it will pay off as handsomely as the price of the matching .com they had to acquire.
This was a very bad move.
They shouldn’t get rid of the “chat” part.
Definitely not a great branding idea. They have downgraded their brand..
Totally disagree. This was a brilliant move and great timing for them. Snap is going to be bigger than Twitter and possibly Instagram. They are much more than a “chat app”, and that is where they were pigeon holed with a brand like “SnapChat”. Keep in mind that looking forward 5-10 years most of Snap’s userbase isn’t even using or aware of Snap today! Snap is ubiquitous. “SnapChat” is an app on your phone which may or may not be relevant or necessary 5 years from now.
There is Snap.com and then there is everything else. All the other potentially “confusing” websites and brands are irrelevant now because the 800 Pound Guerilla just claimed the main street for himself. The only one who matters is the one who has the anchor .com.
IMO, It was a smart and logical move … it is similar to what Google did by creating a separate Name/Brand (Alphabet) for its Parent Company in order to more effectively distinguish itself from, and to help facilitate the current expansion and future creation of, its multiple Products and Services (i.e., Search Engine, Self Driving Cars … )
Buying snap.com was not a bad idea.
Rebranding to Snap might be.
Andrew – I’ve analyzed the pitfalls of generic domains when they don’t apply to the product.
“Snap” is basically very abstract and spans a variety of existing services, the examples I listed are real top results from corresponding countries as they appear on Google.
There is no 800lbs gorilla other than Google, and I’ve demonstrated why “snap” will rank differently; it’s the logical approach search engines take. You and I can talk “dictionary .com domains” all day long, but in the end a brand is dotless.
Brands require distinctiveness to flourish, or they suffer “genericide.”
Rob – Google didn’t re-baptize itself “Alphabet” and it already has a multitude of separate, distinct brands. They also don’t need the .com for every one of them; the services are tagged onto the Google brand.
@Acro – again totally disagree! “Snap” has EVERYTHING to do with their product and vision. Snap implies 2 things:
1. Speed / Ease / Immediate (gratification?)
2. Photo / Video (you “snap” a shot and everyone knows the sound a camera shutter makes is “snap”)
Andrew – “Snap” means so many things that the change is on the opposite side of branding.
That’s what I’ve explained here. They’re losing the unique and snappy Snapchat, and the opportunity to expand the brand with anything *on top* of the brand.
There are so many photography, video or sound/music related “snap” services that the snap brand is not unique, in fact, they’re diluting it.
It won’t be very long until a search for “snap” will quickly show products and services from Snap.com and SnapChat… Seems a little premature to focus on the search engines in regards to the rebrand.
Aaron – The issue goes beyond search engine results. Which of the numerous “snap” companies gets to claim ownership of the brand? The .com alone doesn’t provide instant recognition.
Good luck trademarking such a generic, or chasing UDRP cases for “snap” domains – developed or not.
Google already owns a fanciful mark, the creation of an umbrella company didn’t come with a change in the brand; you still go to Google.com to search, not to ABC.XYZ
Acro – By owning Snap.com, SnapChat is now the only company that can use the term “Snap” when consumer behavior is considered. Owning the dot com may not provide “instant recognition”, but it goes a long way with trust and is mandatory to build recognition. This is the basis of the domain industry’s message to end users. The people at Snap understood this and thus purchased Snap.com in a brilliant move. Snap.com is a case study that domainer investors can use for future reference when negotiating with end users.
Trademarking the term should not be a problem in their classifications.
SnapChat is the App, Snap is the company.
Aaron – Snapchat is the only company that can use the term “Snap”?
I think you forgot to remove your domainer blinds.
Snap, a term so generic that it has not acquired secondary meaning without being part of a longer term, is widely used by thousands of businesses.
The issue here isn’t that they bought Snap.com, but that they rebranded away from SnapChat, just to add video-recording sunglasses and assorted services. That, from a branding standpoint, is a major mistake.
Domainers can talk all day long about this “brilliant move,” but brand strategists disagree.
“Domainers can talk all day long about this “brilliant move,” but brand strategists disagree.”
Domainers are the best brand strategists.
“Domainers are the best brand strategists.”
Best joke of the day. Thanks for the laugh! 😀
A good to have, but not a great brand word.
“a hurried, irritable tone or manner.”
Some one word dot com are just to generic to uniquely carry brand ideals.
And now there is a lawsuit against Snap/Snapchat by Snap Interactive, for trademark infringement.
http://ipprotheinternet.com/ipprotheinternetnews/article.php?article_id=5143#.WBePlSSHpBN