Are Web 2.0 names dead?

[netguy33]

Hey,

There are now a lot of domains out there following on from the Google trend that could be considered web 2.0 names, names that mean nothing.

In my opinion its come to a point where now they are getting stupid such as names that can't be pronounced correctly and don’t sound like they are spelt such as twhirl (there are much worse than this, but this is all that comes to mind right now).

So is it time for a new way to come up with domain names that will be available as .com or is it time to move onto other TLD's where such stupid names don’t have to be used at all?

I’d like to know what you all think about the subject.

 

[soggyindo]

new tlds might help free up a big load of names, but i can't imagine it is going to kill the trend.

i'd take a only-one-of-a-kind brandable over a blando generic if i was launching a big company.

my guess is they'll get more 2.0 rather than less so...

 

[bigdipper]

Hey,

There are now a lot of domains out there following on from the Google trend that could be considered web 2.0 names, names that mean nothing.

In my opinion its come to a point where now they are getting stupid such as names that can't be pronounced correctly and don’t sound like they are spelt such as twhirl (there are much worse than this, but this is all that comes to mind right now).

So is it time for a new way to come up with domain names that will be available as .com or is it time to move onto other TLD's where such stupid names don’t have to be used at all?

I’d like to know what you all think about the subject.

I kind of like the web 2.0 names myself...

I think they are creative, interesting, different, brandable, etc.. etc...

I think that if anything - there will be "more" of these creative names in the future, not less... particularly in the ".com" space - especially considering that not everyone will be able to fork over top dollar for a fancy generic 1 or 2 worder.

 

[HuntingMoon]

another reason "web2.0" names are hot is that they are less prone to trademark issues. we just opened a category on our site for web2.0 and we sold a social networking name right away.

 

[jkennedy]

If only we knew what the 3.0 trend was gonna be...

I'd like to get in on that one early.

 

[netguy33]

If only we knew what the 3.0 trend was gonna be...

I'd like to get in on that one early.

You and everyone else on these forums i think.

Could it be lots of hyphens? or maybe create your own tld (rather it wasnt).

 

[HWW]

If only we knew what the 3.0 trend was gonna be...

I'd like to get in on that one early.

Wouldn't we all!


I like them for many reasons, they tend to be short, brandable, catchy and don't have TM issues - and can usually be picked up cheaply. I think there is still a strong demand for all the above reasons but Id only spend my money on those that can actually be pronounced.

 

[Ronald Regging]

I have a bunch of 5-6 letter brandables that would be considered web 2.0 type names. Most of them are alright, nothing too incredibly special though. But the one I like the most is Ribbut.com

It's obviously a misspelling of ribbit, but I just like the way it looks and it's a fun word and sound. Easily brandable with a frog mascot of some type.

As long as there are brandable derivatives available to register and creative, under-funded entrepreneurs in the world, I don't see the trend dying any time soon. Most startups don't have millions to invest into a domain name, so they grab something catchy, brandable and on the cheap.

Personally if I was trying to make a breakout in an industry, I'd prefer to have a nice generic category killer, because it brings instant authority with it. However, not everyone can afford that, so you do it the old fashioned way and actually create a brand.

 

[labrocca]

I kind of like the web 2.0 names myself...

I think they are creative, interesting, different, brandable, etc.. etc...

I think that if anything - there will be "more" of these creative names in the future, not less... particularly in the ".com" space - especially considering that not everyone will be able to fork over top dollar for a fancy generic 1 or 2 worder.

That's how I feel.

Paloopa.com
Witza.com
eZood.com
Fruny.com
Zowin.com
Squb.com
Vucky.com
Sluxo.com
Yorika.com
Zanmo.com

Those are just some of my favorites that I plan to hold 2-3 years minimum.

 

[Traveler]

I would not call them web 2.0 names per say, but I get the point. I would just stick with "brandable".

I think they have a future for sure. Like soggyindo said, sometimes the generic is just bland. For instance "digg.com" is so much cooler than "SocialBookmarking.com", "Google.com" is cooler than "SearchEngine.com". If you have some advertising dollars and a great idea then a brandable is a fine and often preferable choice for many sites.

 

[soggyindo]

it might be a fruitful exercise to think - okay, i'm a startup company and all the generics AND short, brandable names are gone - what do i do?

go with another extension? a .me or .tv perhaps?

or how about absurd double keyword names, like FreckleFoot.com, CameraPiggy.com... etc?

Not much point/ way to start collecting those!

 

[deleted984054565403]

Web 2.0 names are not dead. I just think it's unwise to collect hundreds of them hoping the startups will come lining up at your door. It won't happen.

As it's been stated, Web 2.0 startups are going to search for a name that's not taken. They'll move letters around until they have the name they want. Remember, in most cases, they're building a brand off a domain they own, not the other way around.

I have a bunch of these "brandable" names. They're a quick $20 to many resellers if the name is halfway decent, but that's it.