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?

I’ll be speaking about the role of “truth” in branding at an AIGA event in mid-January 2011 (http://aigatruth.eventbrite.com/). The presentation will explore the role of truth (and lies) in building, sustaining, and evolving brands. I’d appreciate the thoughts of this distinguished forum and its guests on where and how veracity or deceit have profoundly changed the trajectory of brands. In your view, is truth sometimes an impediment to progress? Are lies (mild or major) useful? Which brands today are grand liars and which are beacons of truth? Who will fail or thrive because of their approach?

My own experience is that it is not as straight-foward as:  truth = good or lies = bad. HP stagnated for years despite a pure and true adherence to the HP Way. AVIS’ “We try harder” campaign is a classic example of how communicating the unvarnished truth can rescue a failing brand. Joe Firmage, the successful CEO of USWeb/CKS during the dotcom surge, talked candidly about his belief in extraterrestrials. Risky, but Joe’s quirky ‘truthfulness’ wasn’t what tanked the stock. Xe Services (a.k.a. Blackwater) continues to thrive despite a culture of deception. SIGG implied its water bottles were BPA-free (they were not)—and built a huge market advantage by riding the wave of BPA-fears. What are your favorite examples?