IT.COM

discuss How do you define brandable?

NameSilo
Watch

equity78

Top Member
TheDomains Staff
TLDInvestors.com
Impact
28,351
There seems to be a never ending array of domain investors looking for "brandable" names. One of the dominant themes of domain wanted threads on Namepros. I think that the broad request of brandable might be wasting a lot of people's time. I see people argue all the time what is brandable and what is not, someone told me the mattress company that acquired Purple.com was stupid. They said, … [Read more...]
 
10
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I started a thread exactly about this once. I had my own definition of brandable. Turns out most people think, no matter what the domain name: IE: goldnews.com it's a brandable. However, if they don't like the domain: IE: axztze.com it's not a brandable :D

In summery, we shouldn't be calling domains 'domains', but calling them 'brandables', as all domains ARE brandable (lol). Further, if a person personally doesn't like the domain, it's just crap.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/what-is-a-brandable-domain.993623/

LOL, re-reading over thread, have ppl like @todaygold saying: "You really are thick headed. What part of, it's based on EMOTION and can't be DEFINED, don't you understand

And I go on to call 'brandable' a magical word, impossible to define :D
 
Last edited:
7
•••
Combination of keywords that make sense together
 
4
•••
I will consider it's brandable when the domain name is short and good enough to use as physical store name and doing business under that domain in long term.:xf.wink:

Say for example, Cafe.cc is short and good enough to use as physical store name in long term and it can be considered as brandable:xf.cool:
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I will consider it's brandable when the domain name is short and good enough to use as physical store name and doing business under that domain in long term.:xf.wink:

Say for example, Cafe.cc is short and good enough to use as physical store name in long term and it can be considered as brandable:xf.cool:

Why does it have to be short? lots of domains are long and clearly brandable to begin with and successful too. Under your definition plentyoffish.com wasn't brandable to begin with, because long?
 
1
•••
Personally.... now notice I say PERSONALLY

For me a brandable is a UNIQUE brandable name that UNIQUELY identifies a particular company or brand name.

So if you take an ordinary word and slightly modify it into a unique BRANDABLE new word. Something you can register as a trademark without infringing on someone else.

In Canada this was just done by a big bank under the Simplii Financial name or simplii.com.

I considered this a classic brandable with the company having full control because it is a made up word.

Now if someone else uses Simplii Loans they get shut down. Technically even a Simplii Restaurant could not use it because it is a made up trademarked word.

Apple will alway have to fight because they only hold the mark in the technology field. Apple was banned from going into music with the name Because apple was owned by the Beatles.

It would have been better to change the word slightly and there would have been no limitations. Instead Apple has paid a lot of money to be able to use Apple with iTunes etc.

Disclaimer: Please note the above is simplii (pardon the pun) my opinion on brandables.

Blatant Plug for my domain: www.Priide.com - I consider this my best BRANDABLE - and a great example of owning a name where if trademarked it would be hard for anyone to use anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
6
•••
The term 'BRANDABLE', in relation to internet domains, has yet been defined. Until 'BRANDABLE' is properly defined the debate of opinions will dictate the conversation, versus the debate of facts.

With that understanding, my opinion is that most domains can become a brand, thus making most domains 'BRANDABLE'.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Why does it have to be short? lots of domains are long and clearly brandable to begin with and successful too. Under your definition plentyoffish.com wasn't brandable to begin with, because long?

Plentyoffish is indeed too long.
Let's take a look the current logo of plentyoffish, They're now promoted themselves as POF and they are now using POF.com as their domain.


pof.jpg
 
3
•••
"plenty of fish is indeed too long" (to be a brandable).

They were successful LONG before they adopted POF. POF wouldn't even make sense without them succeeding with plenty of fish, and I can give a ton more examples if you want to try saying brandables are only short.

I picked Plenty of Fish specifically because I knew someone would 'take the bait'. Just look at their history, POF didn't make them who they are.

Just like facebook bought fb.com and so many others. These are not so much for branding as for show. Common ppl are not talking to their friends about "pof" and "fb" they are saying plenty of fish and facebook in full.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
LOL, re-reading over thread, have ppl like @todaygold saying: "You really are thick headed. What part of, it's based on EMOTION and can't be DEFINED, don't you understand

cuz Mr. TodayGold is a :troll:
 
0
•••
Plentyoffish is indeed too long.
Let's take a look the current logo of plentyoffish, They're now promoted themselves as POF and they are now using POF.com as their domain.


pof.jpg

POF was the abbreviated version and has been in use for many years :xf.grin:
 
0
•••
My opinion is that there are different levels of brandables. On the outer edge of it you have the names that a majority would not consider brandable at all. On the inside you would have the names most all would agree that are brandables. It can be very subjective.
 
5
•••
"plenty of fish is indeed too long" (to be a brandable).

They were successful LONG before they adopted POF. POF wouldn't even make sense without them succeeding with plenty of fish, and I can give a ton more examples if you want to try saying brandables are only short.

I picked Plenty of Fish specifically because I knew someone would 'take the bait'. Just look at their history, POF didn't make them who they are.

Just like facebook bought fb.com and so many others. These are not so much for branding as for show.

Do you knew that facebook was indeed using TheFacebook.com at the very first time.
They immediately upgrade their domain to facebook.com when they had the money.


FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Definition: "Brandable" / br and da bull
  1. (other) see: "enigma"
 
1
•••
0
•••
brandable is:
- no more than 6 letters!
- Easy to remember!
- a .com
 
1
•••
Brandable name by my definition is a potential word(s) or phrase a company may use for their name, service of product.

Once the brandable name has been used, its becomes a 'Brand'


in others words; brandable has the potential to become a brand.
 
1
•••
Last edited:
1
•••
i'm only now finding out 'brandable' isn't a dictionary word! if it's not in webster's,oxford or collins it's just made up.
 
3
•••
0
•••
New GTLDs make for good brandable names because they efficiently modify a keyword into a brand name. Purity.
 
5
•••
apple.com - brandable

not excatly...

Apple is now a brand.

before Macintosh decided to use it, it was a possible brandable name they could have used.

Brand + Able = the ability to brand

Brand = what a company makes of a name or phrase.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
It is surprisingly elusive to try to define a brandable domain. I would say, perhaps obviously, that a brandable domain is any term that could be used by a company or organization for their brand. The types of domain names that companies brand on are very diverse, including both generic and made up words, as well as acronyms.

Bob
 
2
•••
brandable is:
- no more than 6 letters!
- Easy to remember!
- a .com
Oh dear, poor MicroSoft, and so many more, didn't listen to your 'advise'.

Technically any name/domain/thing can be a brandable if one is willing to spend the dineros to make it so. Advertisers have been branding products and services into the minds of the public forever. And continue to do so, over and over.
 
7
•••
before Macintosh decided to use it, it was a possible brandable name they could have used.

As a long time user of Apple products had to point out that the name Apple PRECEDED Macintosh by a lot. The Apple computers started in 1976 (incorporation under name Apple early 1977) while the Macintosh did not come along until January 1984.

Apple had a bit of a fight trademark wise with Apple Records, the Beatles label, because they used sound in the computers. Allegedly the Apple sound called sosumi was an inside dig at Apple records as "so sue me".

I used the Apple II for many years. Wish I had kept one as a museum piece!

Bob
 
1
•••
Back