Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?
from the they're-baaaaaaaack,-sort-of dept
Alarm:clock has a post talking about how Xoom, an online competitor to Western Union for sending cash around the world, has raised a lot of money from a bunch of top tier VC firms. However, the name stood out, because Xoom was the name of one of the more ridiculously overhyped (and underdelivering) dot coms of the first bubble era. It’s clear that this Xoom has nothing to do with the original Xoom, but it seems odd that a company would want to associate itself with a company that had a terrible reputation, constantly over-promoted itself, and kept trying to come up with a an idea that actually worked (their main thing was selling clip art, but they were mostly known for being a GeoCities clone). The company did eventually sucker NBC into buying it and merging it with its own struggling Snap/NBCi web portal, before the whole thing collapsed due to the complete pointlessness of the offering (Snap.com having also recently been reborn as a new, totally unrelated company). It’s fun to mock the names of some web 2.0 companies, but are the naming choices really that thin that it’s worth bringing back names that were closely associated with big flameouts and only died a few years ago?
Comments on “Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?”
free traffic
I know why they wanted xoom.com
Think of all the old websites out there that still link to the old xoom site, links advertising free hosting, or to homepages that no longer exist on xoom. This sort of traffic could bring in several hundred visitors a day. and all absolutely free.. they could build a very successful business this way.
I’ve actually been thinking I should buy Flooz.com for my new web 2.0 version of pets.com for this very reason.
YaY
Lovely Idea .
If you make a Podcast on your Blog about bulding the Web2.0 version of Pets.com on the Flooz.com domain because of the the old incoming links are good for business , I am totally RSSing that .
Lack of Good Domains
Heck, it could just be that there are no more good domain names left.
nunya_bidness
space filler
Rhymes with exhume?
exhume?
You seem to be point out that either the client base or the company will be necrophiliacs. Am I right in assuming this?
Cant have it all
They gotta do something, internet advertising can get pretty costly and having a snappy web name like fixmyfurnace.net just doesnt bring the masses. Its hard to get traffic if you dont advertise and using an old .com will probably get plenty of traffic, of course your site could just become some crap that gets in the way of my web surfing so it’s still a two way street
Re: Cant have it all
I have spent days and days trying name variants for web offerings, it is VERY difficult these days to come up with a name, or any variant of it which hasnt alreay gone
J
There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
3 lashes for using meaningless terms such as web 1.0 and web 2.0. When they widen your local expressway do they rename it “Local Expressway 2.0”?
Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
I had always assumed that when people like Mike use a term like “Web 2.0” it’s irony.
Re: Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
I had always assumed that when people like Mike use a term like “Web 2.0” it’s irony.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner… 😉
Yeah, sometimes it’s so easy to forget that sarcasm and irony HTML tags don’t work in all browsers.
Tired of Web 2.0 already
Look, nothing has changed on the web, there is no version 2 of the web out their.
In fact, when I first started hearing about this, I thought that the web was expected to shift to Internet 2 or some other more advanced network technology like using IPv6 or something bringing about a new era in security and robustness.
Instead, this is some garbage buzzword used to describe to luddites (i.e. Wall Street Stock Brokers that know nothing about technology) that something has changed in the web to warrant them locking back to the web for investment opportunity.
It is the keyword for a new Dot.Com bubble that is expanding towards another sharp pin.
All that has changed is that over the last 5 – 10 years, there has been an increasing focus on delivering online web applications which can mimic desktop application by using AJAX or some other technology that doesn’t require full page refreshes in order to show changes in UI states. The only reason why they are calling this Web 2.0 is that some somewhat clever marketing guru over at O’Reilly Media needed a hook to start getting people to buy more books about web development, so they coined the phrase Web 2.0. Wall Street picked it up as a way of invoking some sense of urgency in re-examining the web as an investment opportunity and source of lucrative IPO’s.
It is a CORPORATE fabrication, only idiot CEO’s and ignorant web columnists and bloggers promote the idea that the web has undergone any evolutionary change and continue to promote this concept.
If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
Web 2.0 only means that soon it too will be obsolete when Web 3.0 comes out… or Web 2010. The only these wall street types think you can have innovation is by making the previous obsolete. The same is true for the housing market, developers knock down old houses and build new condos and sell for huge profits. If only there was a way to easily knock down some of the crappy – run down – web sites to make room for Web 2.0 then I would buy into the name.
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.
Amen 2.0, brotha…
It's short attention spans.
Seems that the attention span of internet users in general has steadily decreased over the past several years. Nobody remembers the names that failed in 2002 anymore, so why not re-use them?
—
Howard Lee Harkness
The Celtic Fiddler Violins and accessories
name re-use....
So let’s say I had enough money to build my own cruise ship, would it be a smart move to name it “Titanic”?
I think not. Call me a little bit supersititious but coming from an old nautical family the one thing we take very seriously is the history associated with naming things. If a name has a bad history, don’t use it again!
its just a shell company.
Web 2.0
I use Firefox 1.5 only. Will I be able to get WEB 2.0 with it or do I need a new internet thingy from AOL 😉
Brand recognition
There are many companies who’s names have come back fromt he dead to do the same thing or something else entirely. The most popular being Atari.
These company names are HOUSEHOLD brand names that cost a company billions in advertising to make sure you remember their name. And since the public’s memory is incredibly short it’s rare to find someone that remembers that Atari and others actually went bankrupt years ago. All the new company has to do is get a product out there and make sure the public knows about it, in effect let them know they are still around.
It’s a major win to grab a household word as your company name. If you can’t find a household word, just follow Microsoft’s example and grab something descriptive from the house itself:
word
office
windows
notepad
power
point
…etc etc.
Re: drqx xtpqok
ladmk dpvekjau xpamryn ctdakvf lkjen ctnbem tudqmh
Re-use
Look what happened when they dusted off (and re-purposed) myspace.com…
oycjnx peduvtz
esiv upsnzce endyxf imgqexdlf xivh surbv hpki
Smestaj u Sokobanji
Seems that the attention span of internet users in general has steadily decreased over the past several years. Nobody remembers the names that failed in 2002 anymore, so why not re-use them?