Are dictionary 1-word .coms a good strategy?

[nielsencl]

The number of words in the English language changes, but is thought to be from 475,000 to over 1,000,000. I have found there are a number of uncommon or old words that are not registered.

I am just wondering what others think about the value of domains with words that you are only likely to hear if you watch the National Spelling Bee?

My thought was that while many people may not know the word, they could be better that words that are made up? I mean, which would be the better domain name, "Flickr" or one like Photonasty.com, Photophily.com?

 

[enlytend]

If it's a word nobody's heard of, then you'd have to put effort into branding just like you would with a made-up word.

I think a partially-familiar word (like the 2 examples you gave - "photo" root is familiar although the entire word is not) would be problematic. People would remember the 'familiar" half but there's potential for confusion as to what the "other" part of the word should be. Whereas a distinctive, made-up word is more likely remembered in its entirity.

Of course if you brand aggessively and target your campaign towards any shortcomings, you would probably do fine with any of them. But that takes time and money.

 

[nielsencl]

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I realize that the branding would be important. I'm just wondering if photonasty.com and flickr.com both had the same type of content and were promoted equally, which one would do better? I know this is a hard thing to answer, but my feeling is that domains/sites that use an actual English word should do better in many cases.

By the way, I just checked out flicker.com to see what was there, and you see a good example of potential name confusion that is resulting in traffic losses for the main domain (flickr). I am very surprised that Flickr.com has not purchased Flicker.com

 

[enlytend]

By the way, I just checked out flicker.com to see what was there, and you see a good example of potential name confusion that is resulting in traffic losses for the main domain (flickr). I am very surprised that Flickr.com has not purchased Flicker.com

Maybe they just don't want to pay whatever the owner is asking for it.

At any rate, the current page is very obviously NOT the highly popular photo sharing site, so anyone with half a brain cell who accidently types "flicker" while looking for Flickr will realize their mistake and try again. No harm, no foul.

I'm just wondering if photonasty.com and flickr.com both had the same type of content and were promoted equally, which one would do better?

Impossible to do on that example, since the one is already familiar, but the best way to answer that question would be to do market research on a random sampling (large enough to be statistically valid) of people's perceptions of and reaction to each name you're considering. Design a study to see if there's a conscious or subconscious preference, positive or negative connotations, see if people remember one better than the other. That's what corporate marketing groups do when deciding on a new brand name or slogan - you don't put a big budget behind something like that without testing!

Personally, I'd expect photonasty to be a site full of nasty photos !

 

[nielsencl]

At first I thought that Flicker.com was not showing ads because they were making some changes, but now I am not sure. They post stats that give you and idea of the potential revenue they could be making, yet they don't seem to care... strange. If they were showing ads then I think it would be taking away from Flickr.

I agree about the first impression of Photonasty, and that is really not a good example, but even so I think that name would get more traffic from those looking for nasty photos, and then most people would always remember the name and talk about it because it doesn't have any.

 

[enlytend]

At first I thought that Flicker.com was not showing ads because they were making some changes, but now I am not sure. They post stats that give you and idea of the potential revenue they could be making, yet they don't seem to care... strange. If they were showing ads then I think it would be taking away from Flickr.

Smart.

They're advertising the name and showing its virtues to potential buyers while avoiding legal issues with Flickr. Running ads would be risky. they're hoping to attract a big offer.