Brand Dialogue - Latest Comments in Web 2.0 names that hurt

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

Antony — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 03:04:04 -0000

Occasionally someone mentions that the Web 2.0 names are some of the ugliest every to hit the planet; maybe it's an unconscious nose-thumb at the "pretty" names that ad agencies come up with.

But then they copy each other's names! I noticed this and did a post on a smaller list of dropped vowel names: http://www.namesatwork.com/...

Flickr, Zooomr -- Whatevr!

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

tsieling — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:13:09 -0000

This is a great thing about blogs, where you have an idea, have a discussion, and evolve or refine the idea.

It's also characteristic of the web that we now live in an age of de-localized brands, where all these names can come before our eyes more easily and quickly, and we can see the patterns that happen around a new innovations. It doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't other innovations to be had in products that adopt a pop naming convention, but it does sort of situate their inspiration and aspects of their philosophy. Everyone wants to be in the busy party, and naming after a pattern can at least get you in the door. To be a hit, you still have to have the real goods behind you.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

Weave — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:45:55 -0000

Thanks for the correction, Gareth.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

Gareth Simpson — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:37:19 -0000

Do you think you could move Grabbr into the "at least they have an excuse" section.

It's a teeny tiny app I knocked together very quickly, specifically to upload to Flickr. I'm not trying to build a brand, the name was just the first thing that popped into my head.

I'm getting a bit bored that it has become a lightning rod for the dropping an e backlash ever since it got scoblized.

Ta :)

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

GregGershman — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:07:31 -0000

No problem, thanks for the correction!

By the way, the other name I was considering back in the day was RSS (pronounced arse) Kicker; so we're at least not as bad as it could have been. ;)

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

Weave — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:45:37 -0000

Actually the more I think about it, Ma.gnolia doesn't belong on the list at all. It's certainly not ob.noxio.us, nor copying del.icio.us. Greg, I've updated Blogdigger and Talkdigger as well. I appreciate the comments...sorry for lumping you guys in.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

Weave — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:59:34 -0000

Actually, Todd, I dig ma.gnolia a lot. Yours was the most imaginative of the companies using dotus-interruptus names.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

paulmcenany — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:57:36 -0000

Now, you just need to go back and figure out how many millions of dollars were wasted by all the companies you mentioned. I would bet it's a lot of Moola, or maybe a bunch of Dollrs.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

tsieling — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:47:42 -0000

So sorry that our name has caused you pain. For ma.gnolia, we really wanted the name magnolia for the product, but prying manolia.com away from Exxon, who owns it, was probably not going to happen. So we went with the next best thing which was to break up the name. We also thought it would be a good hat tip to del.icio.us but don't anymore as people seem predisposed to look at it as copying.

Re: Web 2.0 names that hurt

GregGershman — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:00:51 -0000

I won't debate the effectiveness of our branding, but, just so you know, Blogdigger was around a full two years before digg. And Talkdigger was inspired by our name (or so the founder told me).

I agree it's very difficult to come up with a good name nowadays without being or sounding derivative.