Making the logo look like a pin is a cute (if contrived) idea, and 3D effects are a little 2005 for us. We’ll leave more comprehensive critiques to the commenters at Brand New, but this refinement of the identity seems like a big lost opportunity to us.

Who, besides its employees, calls the American Red Cross anything but the Red Cross? Sure, it’s a distinct organization, as are the British Red Cross, la Cruz Roja Española and la croix-rouge française. But they’re all part of one incredibly powerful global brand, and they should identify themselves that way.

Think it can’t be done? Look at Deloitte, or Ernst & Young. 

Deloitte and E&Y are powerful, unified global brands, yet each organization is made up of dozens of separate member companies. Each of the members has a distinct legal name, but uses the global brand name for its identity. Both organizations have central groups that coordinate global strategy, much like the IFRC in the case of the Red Cross organizations.

Somewhere in the fine print of the Geneva Conventions that give the IFRC its charter we’re sure there are rules about how affiliates should be named. It’s time to change them. Or, faster yet, ignore them.

We’re not suggesting all of the IFRC’s affiliated groups use the English words ‘Red Cross’ for their identities. Just that they drop the national modifiers, align their brands with public perceptions and truly embrace the purpose for which they exist: to prevent and alleviate suffering everywhere. The Red Crescent (in 33 Islamic States) and the Red Crystal (in Israel) groups should be parallel brands in their respective territories, again without national modifiers.

And it appears that at some point, someone had the same idea. Notice that the URLs for the affiliates are not americanredcross.org, but simply redcross.org; not cruzrojaespanola.com but cruzroja.es.

So - did the Red Cross get it wrong? Is it not more important to express its worldwide vision than its regional segmentation?

Three years ago, rumour first began circulating about the possibility of private ownership of top level URLs (Uniform Resource Locators). On June 20 2011, ICANN, the governing body for online domain names, formally approved a decision to allow organisations to register their own names at the top level of the Internet naming hierarchy — appropriately referred to as Top Level Domains, or TLDs for short.

We are all familiar with generic TLDs, .com, .co, .eu, .qa or .ae, but soon we will start to see company domains such as .microsoft, .apple and .bmw. Countries, cities and destinations may register their own domain names too, for example; .newyork, .dubai and .london. Companies will also acquire keywords that relate to their products and categories, consider; .hotel, .computer, .camera or .sportscar.

Big brands with big budgets (US$185k+) will be able to register their .brand domain names early next year — with the process of application opening on 12th January 2012, but only running until the 12th April 2012. It is speculated registration will reopen 2-3 years later.

Online commentary suggests the new TLDs are likely to change the way we find information on the Internet — influencing how we are to organise our profiles and brands online. But I am not fully convinced this will have as significant an impact as the media suggests.

Whilst the recent decision may open the door to many possibilities and opportunities for all manner of organisations — no matter which category you belong — I believe, it may only be for the short term. As consultants and specialists we should not only be aware of how TLDs are to be implemented, the potential implications to naming, trademark registration and our clients’ rights to ownership, but, perhaps more importantly, whether the investment in acquiring a .brand is actually necessary.

As technology evolves, and we continue to develop new and innovative ways for our brands to connect, engage and interact with the audience, in the wider scheme of things, is ICANN’s decision to allow TLDs a last effort to monetize something already en route to becoming irrelevant and obsolete? A slow decision to approve, a phased and filtered process of activation, combined with the high registration costs, suggests it might be.

With the growing popularity of dedicated, branded apps, improved search engine functionality, auto-complete address bars, intuitive web browsers for smartphone and touch-screen tablets, the importance of having the perfect domain name (for people to find and validate our brands) may be coming to an end. Today, having the right .com is still important, but as the devices and tools we use to access content continue to create new methods of interaction, domain names (whether .com or .brand) will not be as crucial to online business success as they once were.

As always, I am very interested to hear your thoughts and opinions on this and any other related subject.

DD

24 hours later, I got a response that blew me away…totally unexpected. Here it is and I quote:

“Hello Larry,

Thank you for your inquiry.

The HK 395 speakers are supported, sold and serviced by Dell. They are only licensed under the Harman-Kardon name. We do not manufacture or sell this product. Please contact Dell for more information. Their number is 800-624-9896.

Thank you.”

Unbelievable. Turns out that Harman-Kardon has nothing to do with the product they offer online…but touts its brand as being special, distinct, terrific, etc.  

Question then: Given the total lack of involvement H-K has with its own product…does it still merit being called a brand?

Does anyone else have any stories of ‘Lie To Me’ brands?