information Startup name choice article- “good enough”

[offthehandle]

Strange article.
First the author writes:

“But first, the name. You need a name for your company. But choosing a name is a huge waste of time.”

“I don't agree with the view that names are essential and a key factor in success. This is delusional. Take Nike. If you read Phil Knight's (CEO and founder of Nike) book, 'Shoe Dog', you'll discover that the company was originally called Blue Ribbon, and only had to change its name to solve an import licensing issue. Nike was chosen at the last minute, as the least-worst option.

Or take Google. A Googol is a technical term for a very large number. One followed by a hundred zeros, to be exact. Sergey and Larry misspelled the name. I remember telling people about Google after I discovered how brilliant it was, and people laughing at the name. The meaning of names comes after the fact. Accepting this makes your life easier, because you can focus on your business requirements for the name.

Here's what I needed in a name. I absolutely needed the .com domain name for the website. Non-negotiable. This is going to be an international business...”

http://www.independent.ie/business/...is-a-massive-waste-of-your-time-36218499.html

The author ends it by stating:

“But the first rule of startups is: good enough is good enough, and I had run out of time. The clincher was the number of Google results: a big fat zero - the name was totally unique and new.”

 

[DPankaew]

There are plenty of examples to the counterpoint as well though. Mint.com founder says the reason they won the "online wallet" race was because their competitors had a difficult to spell domain name. Blackberry spent six figures naming their company with Lexicon.

Google and Nike are both good names. Nike is named after the goddess of victory, Google is named after a near-infinite mathematical number. They may be accidents, but they were great brand names. Two of Nike's alternative names were Cloud 9 and Falcon.

Where would Nike be today if it were called Cloud 9?

 

[JB Lions]

He got this part right:

"Here's what I needed in a name. I absolutely needed the .com domain name for the website. Non-negotiable. This is going to be an international business, a software-as-a-service business, so you need the .com."

When we look at the startups here, and they're choosing new gtlds only 2% of the time, you usually see new gtld investors point out the horrible .coms they're choosing. And I agree, a lot of them are bad, but think about that. They rather go with that, than a new gtld. That how bad those new gtlds are.

So he got the .com part right. But the names:

First one - AtlasRostra

Second one - Cycadian

Went with this one - Metsitaba, which I think sucks. Sounds like a Japanese electronics brand. If you said it out loud to somebody, I wonder how many would spell it correctly... Metzi..Metsee.... So that was a failure in what he said "Finally, I wanted a name that was easy to say and spell, even for non-English speakers. "

Also 4 syllables in a short amount of letters, unlike the other examples used, Nike, Google etc.

 

[DPankaew]

He got this part right:

"Here's what I needed in a name. I absolutely needed the .com domain name for the website. Non-negotiable. This is going to be an international business, a software-as-a-service business, so you need the .com."

When we look at the startups here, and they're choosing new gtlds only 2% of the time, you usually see new gtld investors point out the horrible .coms they're choosing. And I agree, a lot of them are bad, but think about that. They rather go with that, than a new gtld. That how bad those new gtlds are.

I'm not sure about that. Having a great name is important, but many startups can also get their domain names later. Tinder was GetTinder.com for a long time, and Groupon was a subdomain of its parent company for a long time.

They got the name right first, built a million dollar company, then came back around and acquired the domain name.

That works too :P if Tinder had avoided "Tinder" and gone with a name they could get instead, it could have turned out a lot worse.

 

[JB Lions]

I'm not sure about that. Having a great name is important, but many startups can also get their domain names later. Tinder was GetTinder.com for a long time, and Groupon was a subdomain of its parent company for a long time.

They got the name right first, built a million dollar company, then came back around and acquired the domain name.

That works too :P if Tinder had avoided "Tinder" and gone with a name they could get instead, it could have turned out a lot worse.

Not sure what part of my post you were addressing when you said "not sure about that"?

The example you used - Tinder was GetTinder.com for a long time

were both .coms. I'm all for upgrading your .com to a better .com if you can. Obviously, it's easier if you can get it from the beginning.

 

[Kate]

Having a great name is important, but many startups can also get their domain names later.

Of course, they could but the purchase could turn out to be more expensive down the road. Say for example they build a strong brand name on a .io or whatever, the owner of the .com might want to jack up the price just because the string has become popular (and is possibly getting more traffic).
And the more the company becomes successful, the more they need the .com or whatever domain they deem the 'perfect', must-have domain name.
Besides, rebranding yourself, or just changing URL is often a painful move. So personally I would start with a strong name and matching domain name (in .com for global ambitions).

I firmly believe that a poor domain can hurt your growth, because it's not memorable, unfit for advertising, doesn't work well for word of mouth promotion etc. Because the business settled for whatever was left available.
On the other hand, if you have a great domain you can appear more credible than established competitors.
Consumers may be clueless about domain names in general but they understand instinctively that shoes.com is more compelling that myshoeoutlet.net. Good names are perceived more favorably than crap or average domains, even though people may not even realize it.

 

[DPankaew]

Not sure what part of my post you were addressing when you said "not sure about that"?

The example you used - Tinder was GetTinder.com for a long time

were both .coms. I'm all for upgrading your .com to a better .com if you can. Obviously, it's easier if you can get it from the beginning.

Ah - OK yeah I think we're saying the same thing. All I was saying was that I wouldn't not use the name "Tinder" because I couldn't get "Tinder.com" when I was starting the business.

Of course, they could but the purchase could turn out to be more expensive down the road. Say for example they build a strong brand name on a .io or whatever, the owner of the .com might want to jack up the price just because the string has become popular (and is possibly getting more traffic).
And the more the company becomes successful, the more they need the .com or whatever domain they deem the 'perfect', must-have domain name.
Besides, rebranding yourself, or just changing URL is often a painful move. So personally I would start with a strong name and matching domain name (in .com for global ambitions).

I firmly believe that a poor domain can hurt your growth, because it's not memorable, unfit for advertising, doesn't work well for word of mouth promotion etc. Because the business settled for whatever was left available.
On the other hand, if you have a great domain you can appear more credible than established competitors.
Consumers may be clueless about domain names in general but they understand instinctively that shoes.com is more compelling that myshoeoutlet.net. Good names are perceived more favorably than crap or average domains, even though people may not even realize it.

It can definitely be expensive later down the road. Groupon paid $250,000 for Groupon.com.

But by that point it was a drop in the bucket. Groupon already raised $5 million in VC money. Often $250k a few years down the line is actually less difficult to come up with than $15k in the beginning.

Anyway - I totally agree that a great domain is extremely important (otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum.) I'm just saying - it's not the only factor, and sometimes it makes more sense to go for the best name possible, even if you can't get the domain in the beginning, and acquire the domain name later once you have traction.

 

[GeorgeK]

Someone who picked "Metsitaba" as a corporate name shouldn't be giving naming advice.

 

[GoKaizen]

True. How long before the company folds?

He even built a timer. http://startupdeathclock.com

Someone who picked "Metsitaba" as a corporate name shouldn't be giving naming advice.

Most companies would consider $250k out of a $5 million budget a lot.

It can definitely be expensive later down the road. Groupon paid $250,000 for Groupon.com.

But by that point it was a drop in the bucket. Groupon already raised $5 million in VC money. Often $250k a few years down the line is actually less difficult to come up with than $15k in the beginning.

This can be an expensive mistake.

https://www.domainsherpa.com/zalmi-duchman-freshdiet/

Anyway - I totally agree that a great domain is extremely important (otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum.) I'm just saying - it's not the only factor, and sometimes it makes more sense to go for the best name possible, even if you can't get the domain in the beginning, and acquire the domain name later once you have traction.