Technology start-ups tend to follow trends, as they are often peers to other companies.
The addition of geographic proximity, such as companies in the California valley or the Austin tech sector, further increases the chance of corporate mimicking.
Overall, it’s good to adopt innovative processes from the competition, or from related companies.
One such trend, however, leaves a lot to be desired: the use of unfit domain names.
Brands are important to create and maintain, but they must be memorable and stand out on their own. Naturally, domain names that present the brand “online” need to be registered, and often acquired in the domain aftermarket.
Facing a dilemma of spending a small cache of funds up front versus later on, many start-ups go with lesser domains, until they are past the initial phase. Once they secure investment funds, they are more capable of paying higher premiums for domain names.
That transition, however, can be disastrous for the brand, which is matched by a domain in a lesser TLD.
In recent years, tech industry companies and start-ups adopted the .IO extension en masse, as it stands, among other things, for “input/output.” While widely esoteric, it’s geeky enough to be acceptable at corporate level, at least for start-ups.
Smaller start-ups leverage such domain registrations directly, with the CEO/founder doing all the work. I often receive inquiries for .com, .net and .org domains, from companies that operate on the .IO, .CC or .TV TLDs, or other international ccTLDs.
Wasting money on an unfit domain can be avoided by creating a company or a brand around the availability of the .com. It sounds as a conflict of interest, however, I often advise such start-up founders to upgrade or rename their companies and brands while it’s early in the game.
Once the brand is out or the company becomes popular, it’s often impossible to perform a painless domain rebranding, without extensive financial cost. Customer loyalty also, depends on name brands that remain unchanged, and domains are tacked onto the brand by definition.
The introduction of new gTLDs allows companies to register their brand’s exact purpose and market focus, by ensuring that the keyword+gTLD form a meaningful pair. It can be a wise, affordable alternative to a .com, and it’s a prudent choice versus an .IO or other “generic” ccTLD.
Domain investors are often less aware of the opportunities presented by the proliferation of new gTLDs, in the sense that they perceive every new extension as a fresh list of the same keywords. My approach is that companies should pay attention to the availability of new gTLDs, along with creating strong brands that rely on an exact, composite .com domain.
Wasting money on digital assets such as domains can cost start-ups in the long run, and sometimes their own existence is compromised. It is important to plan out the domain availability options before naming your company or brand.
Chinese corporations are spending millions now to rebrand which they should have done early on in the game.
Great advice and info acro.net