debate What is a brandable domain?

[JayT]

There was a huge debate in chat room. Everyone participating thought I was wrong

-My definition of a brandable: any made up word or non-definite string of words.

-NOT a brandable: 'any generic (dictionary)word, or combination of words that have a rather exacting meaning / have one obvious 'best use'.

My Real examples from chat:
NON BRANDABLE:
Jade.com
Popcorn.com
GoldNews.net
Muffins.org
Apple.com
Monkey.com

All these words can be brandable. Obviously apple isn't expected to be a computer company, but it is. According to everyone else in chat it was a brandable domain all along! They said Jade could be a hotel, or airliner, and as such, it is a brandable domain too. They said GoldNews was a brandable too (and gave crazy reasoning)! My argument was that in reality, anything can be brandable. I told them I could brand blueberrymuffin.com into a baby clothing store (they disagreed) So popcorn.com is brandable but blueberrymuffin.com isn't? I do not think we should be calling the above domains brandables.

It is easier to see when a domain IS a brandable...

They are casting this wide net. I asked why even use the term 'brandable' if it's going to encompass all these domains? Furthermore, if they hated a domain (example: tyvix.com) they said it was NOT a brandable! I could not believe it! They have no definition! they are just going off emotions! Looks like that if they hate a domain they don't want to associate it with their beloved 'brandables'...okay so reality check. Yes, any name can be branded to anything. Do that mean we, as domainers, consider that a brandable domain? Again, why even use the term if we apply it to all of these domains? Why don't we just stop calling them domains and start calling them brandables? (one guy even suggesting just by adding .com or w/e to the end, you are instantly making a brandable, LOL!)

my real examples:
BRANDABLE:
Tyvix.com
Purpleknife.com
Scratchmonkey.com

These word/string are not generic. They have no certain meaning at all. The names can be used for almost anything. These are the kind of domains we should be calling 'brandable'

I would appreciate anyone's input here. This thread might be a little selfish, just to prove to myself that I am not way off base here. I am confused...everyone else was arguing with me...and this seems so simple to me. I am also writing this to warn you because I think it's important to see sentiment!

I highly recommend stop buying 'brandables' This is way over saturated, and ludicrous now. This argument opened my eyes more than ever that this is a big brandable bubble now, ready to pop, just like chips. I honestly think everyone is feeling threatened and must add these good generic domains into their definition of 'brandable' to protect their investment. This is exactly what happens in bubble, investors become irrational. Do not be self-centered people, LOOK around!

 

[JayT]

@todaygold I am "aruging" that domains like beer, monkey, goldchat, apple should NOT be considered brandable domains. I had 5 people argue against that idea in chat. Not 1 person agreed with me. I am starting to question my definition of 'brandable'. Therefore im looking for a debate to convince me one way or another, because I am confused.

 

[wormfood]

@jacolibo you wrote a lot...here let's focus on this, your main point, I believe.

A clothing brand: 'Beer'

I prove my point on any example you give. You can brand everything to anything, if you wish. You guys are arguing the abstract, 'what if, arbitary'. SO why arn't all domains 'brandable' under your definition? If EVERY domain is 'brandable', why are we using the term? pointless...

I have defined brandable in first post, or not? Can you give a better definition or just make up examples that I just waste my time discrediting over and over?

Okay cool, it's being used..
That was just my ignorant guess about the word beer.

So you think the words diabetes and alcoholism are brandable? I guess not. Does that mean all "EMDs" are not brandable? No.
Why does it have to be black and white?
Nobody said everything is brandable, well at least not me.

 

[todaygold]

I am "aruging" that domains like beer, monkey, goldchat, apple should NOT be considered brandable domains. I had 5 people argue against that idea in chat. Not 1 person agreed with me. I am starting to question my definition of 'brandable'. Therefore im looking for a debate to convince me one way or another, because I am confused.

Well let's take the reverse...why do you think these words should not be brandable?

 

[JayT]

@todaygold

Well let's take the reverse...why do you think these words should not be brandable?

I've answered this in more than 1 way. These domains should not be considered brandable to us (beer, monkey, goldchat, apple...) because they are considered generic or one words. If you say these are brandables, then WHAT ISNT a brandable domain?!...according to you guys, only pure junk (in your OPINIONS) isn't a brandable, everything else is! Now, if every domain is a 'brandable' under your definition (which im only assuming by what I am reading here) why are we even using the term? it's like calling a dog "canis dog", just a rendered repetition.

Jaco is trying to say apple is brandable but beer is not. THis is just conjecture! I have a matter of fact definition! And all saying im totally wrong LOL. I am not convinced...

 

[todaygold]

I've answered this in more than 1 way. These domains should not be considered brandable to us (beer, monkey, goldchat, apple...) because they are considered generic or one words. If you say these are brandables, then WHAT ISNT a brandable domain?!...according to you guys, only pure junk (in your OPINIONS) isn't a brandable, everything else is! Now, if every domain is a 'brandable' under your definition (which im only assuming by what I am reading here) why are we even using the term? it's like calling a dog "canis dog", just a rendered repetition.

Again, not sure what the problem is. Anything that sounds good and resonates with people can be brandable. There is an emotional component to that. We call things brandable here, because a lot of domains are not brandable. That is either because they are junk or because they are not meant to be for a brand...such as geographical domains, people's names, etc.

 

[wormfood]

"Who would brand with the word beer in another niche though ha.. " means I thought it was unlikely sheesh.

So you think I believe CarInsurance is brandable? How on earth could that be a brand?
Your definition doesn't include real words that can be used as brands like Puma or something.

 

[JayT]

We call things brandable here, because a lot of domains are not brandable. That is either because they are junk or because they are not meant to be for a brand...such as geographical domains, people's names, etc.

Geodomains are brandable, peoples names are brandable. Ford, Abercrombie and Fitch, Ann Summers, Eddie Bauer, Dell, plenty of names are brands, and so are GEOS, like: Amazon...IDK but a bunch for sure (im sure there are way better examples but you get the point ?) you are just making this up. You just said these are not brandables. You are just picking out what you think on emotion. Define it or debunk my definition....seriously you both are just coming up with examples and i will DEBUNK them everytime.

 

[JayT]

Your definition doesn't include real words that can be used as brands like Puma or something.

ANYTHING can be used as a brandable with your viewpoint, that's my point. I cannot consider PUMA a brandable, because it's a generic one word domain! it has exact, existing meaning. You are only calling it out because it is already a brand, so it makes your arugment SEEM legitimate. If puma is a brandable then hippopotamus is, spidermonkey is. every single animal is. you are only accepting it as a 'brandable' because it was twisted into that! from a domainers view, it is a single word generic, otherwise EVERYTHING is a brandable.

 

[JayT]

@todaygold

You really are thick headed. What part of, it's based on EMOTION and can't be DEFINED, don't you understand? And no, not every geo domain is brandable...for example, NorthWilliamsvilleCountyTennessee isn't really a great brandable name. But regardless, I'm done with this and I'm done debating with you because you won't listen to reason. There is no definition and you apparently won't be satisfied unless you read it in the dictionary, so whatever, think whatever you want.

I think you are not getting the point of the thread. I figured it was obvious...you said, i quote, "There is no definition". If you read the very top of my first post, I GIVE you definition to debate. I HAVE defined it, and you are saying I am wrong. I can apply my definition to any domain in a rational way and determine if it is brandable or not, simple. You are basicly saying 'it depends on what any individual thinks: undefined. Yet, in that same breath you say: "yudergwgsf.com is not a brandable". What if i say that i think it is? you can't prove me wrong. you can't prove me wrong because you are not defining brandable.

@jacoliobo
You said, I quote, "So you think I believe CarInsurance is brandable?"

NO. read first thread. NON BRANDABLE: combination of words that have a rather exacting meaning / have one obvious 'best use'.

 

[JayT]

From the OP:
"My argument was that in reality, anything can be brandable. I told them I could brand blueberrymuffin.com into a baby clothing store (they disagreed)"
"Yes, any name can be branded to anything. Do that mean we, as domainers, consider that a brandable domain? Again, why even use the term if we apply it to all of these domains?"

YOU are applying it to all domains.

No, I am not.

JAYT SAID: "My argument was that in reality, anything can be brandable. I told them I could brand blueberrymuffin.com into a baby clothing store (they disagreed)"
"Yes, any name can be branded to anything...

WAS A LEAD UP TO:
Do that mean we, as domainers, consider that a brandable domain? Again, why even use the term if we apply it to all of these domains?"

Read it and comprehended it within context. I do not write like a robot... I apoligize for writing somewhat rhetorically/sarcastically...now I will explain it in simpler terms.

REWORKED STRAIGHT-FORWARD VERSION: I can't consider domains like blueberrymuffin.com as brandable because it is very generic, it is exacting, and it has an obvious 'best use'. This should be defined as and EMD domain instead. (please don't make me explain why it's an EMD). However, if someone wanted to go out on a limb, this could be branded into a baby clothing store (you guys called this stupid and unlikely, I agree...I WAS MOCKING by saying it COULD be a brandable, sorry). If we are to consider domains like this brandable, what isn't brandable? Again, revert to my definitions "generic, exacting/best use"...yes, this domain (blueberrymuffin.com) falls into NON-Brandable.

I am just waiting for you to define a brandable, please...don't pick at my other shortcommings. stick to facts. Define it. If you cannot define it, as @todaygold said it's impossible because it is opinion, I ask: why then, isn't EVERY domain brandable? It doesn't work when everyone has their own interpretation. 'brandable' is useless when you throw it around with out a definition. I have made my definitions, I have talked sarcasicly, mockingly, ect. I don't mean to confuse anyone. I am simply asking for a definition of a word. Do not all words have a defintion, or is brandable a magical word?

Do you really expect me to see a post that title reads: "BRANDABLE DOMAINS: tiger.com, puma.com" Doesn't this sound redic to you?

Jacolibo: "Here's my new face wash for acne: I call it... Melanoma."
LOL, you are good at twisting stuff around. No, that doesn't make sense...FURTHERMORE, Melanoma is a single word, dictionary, no-brandable under my MAIN POINT. Why are you being so ignorant? And before You go any further...let me say: Any word, or combo of words (brandable or not) COULD be 'TWISTED' to mean something unexpected. IT IS brandable in this sense. SHould we call them all brandable, NO! No, because this COULD make EVERY domain brandable with a little imagination...the word is moot in this case. It is just common sense.

 

[JayT]

C) brandable - a scaffold that is empty waiting to be filled by meaning

Thank you so far...the whole rest of this thread is people trying to invalidate my definition without giving one of their own. I agree with you, I just think "any made up word or non-definite string of words" is more technical and exacting than your "C)". Your definition doesn't conflict with mine though, just inadequate, I think... I am really looking for someone to agree with me, because so far I have about 7 people that are calling me stupid (more or less) for my definitions.

I am actually trying to help everyone by showing them my point of view, and explaining why their point of view is dangerous. LOL sounds like I shouldn't even care, but I do.

 

[JayT]

As I read back over the thread, I see these posts that are littered with things that I agree with, mixed in with things I don't, then spun around to make it sound like I said something, when YOU are saying it. Yes you are mixing the truth with the mix-up, in order to make me sound dumb. Reality is, you are putting words in my mouth. You are chasing your own tails arguing with me. Take this for example : @todaygold ,you said: "You really are thick headed. What part of, it's based on EMOTION and can't be DEFINED, don't you understand? And no, not every geo domain is brandable...for example, NorthWilliamsvilleCountyTennessee isn't really a great brandable name."

"ANd no..." (*You're Implying I stated something and you are about to debunk it): "...NorthWilliamsvilleCountyTennessee isn't really a great brandable name."

Really Sherlock? When did I say something like this is? Contrary. My description of NON-BRANDABLE: combination of words that have a rather exacting meaning / have one obvious 'best use'. "NorthWIlliamsvilleCountyTennessee" is this, it has an exacting meaning! I know it's not a brandable. Are you comprehending? Now read what I say is brandable and you will see this domain is exactly opposite of THAT definition (ironic? no).

The title of this thread is: What is a brandable domain?
Does anyone blame me for rejecting "it's based on EMOTION and can't be DEFINED"?


Every word has a definition. Sometimes words can have an adjusted meaning when used in some context, or in this case, a specific industry. I cannot accept that 'brandable' is a special magic word with no definition. Truth is, You don't know. You have gave NO definition yourself, yet argue with mine (and with great futility).

For the umpteenth time, the traditional word 'brandable', we can apply to EVERY domain, because imagination is limitless. That's because of the nature of domains! We have shifted the 'space' in which this word can function, into an industry that embraces the word...it is the lifeblood of it...domains + brandable are interchangeable if used with the common definition. This cannot be. If it is every domain, brandable, why are people using it to tag their domains? They are the silly then.

So far I am fighting off trolls that can't even answer the TOPIC within 10 replies. Instead they attack my thesis with no substance, just emotional assumptions. WHEN SOMEONE tells you 1+1=2, you don't say they are wrong by giving examples of other equations. you must first define 1 and 2. Define 'brandable' in a way that is fitting for domainers. Simple. I don't want examples like "beer.com is not brandable, tiger.com is".

 

[wormfood]

Jacoliobo, sometime things mean something else IN SOME KIND OF CONTEXT. In the context of domaining, I do not think tiger.com is a brandable. It is a GENERIC single word domain.

Yeah, totally makes sense. In the context of domain investing, nobody is really trying to maximize profits, so the best thing to do with tiger.com is not to sell it to a business that wants to build a brand with it, but to treat it like the non-brandable domain it is and sell it to a photographer who loves tigers.

I can't consider domains like blueberrymuffin.com as brandable because it is very generic, it is exacting, and it has an obvious 'best use'.

Okay.
I want you to answer this one. What is the 'obvious best use' (or uses) for these domains:
tiger.com
apple.com
monkey.com

 

[JayT]

Yeah, totally makes sense. In the context of domain investing, nobody is really trying to maximize profits, so the best thing to do with tiger.com is not to sell it to a business that wants to build a brand with it, but to treat it like the non-brandable domain it is and sell it to a photographer who loves tigers.

Okay.
I want you to answer this one. What is the 'obvious best use' (or uses) for these domains:
tiger.com
apple.com
monkey.com

Here you go cherry picking again, trying to bend the truth. My Definition: any generic (dictionary)word, OR OR OR OR combination of words that have a rather exacting meaning / have one obvious 'best use'

Obviously these are dictionary words. So I don't have to give a best use, they fall under another qualifier. try again.

AND for TIGER.COM not being best used for actual tigers. HOW come NOT? You are assuming AGAIN.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Any word/words that can be built into a brand, is a 'brandable'....

 

[JayT]

Hey all,

I read a great definition of "brandable" from @Doron Vermaat in his latest post on DNgeek:

"The criteria for inclusion in the list (i.e. "brandable") are the same as previous years.

• No numeric domains
• Dotcom only
• No 2L & 3L domains (as they are a breed on their own)
• No one-word dictionary domains (in any language). This means the sale of Hora.com is not included for example as it’s the Spanish word for Hour.
• Unless a word has an alternative spelling such as No 18 on the list, Humann.com or No 61, Typsy.com
• No 4-letter acronyms unless they are pronounceable and used as a brand name instead of an acronym (many examples of those on this list!)
• Two keyword domains can qualify. No 54, BrightEnergy.com, for example, is a brandable domain name while CleanEnergy.com would not have made this list.
• Variation on words are allowed, such as No 715, Productly.com (none of these in the top 100 this year)"

This definition really resonated well with me. As much as any name can be turned into a brand, I think that in order for a domain to be strictly labeled as "brandable", it needs to be excluded from all other domain categories.

So yes, "Apple" can become a brand, but no it is not a "brandable" domain name because it already has a clear, defined meaning.

FINALLY! someone agrees. I wish he will come here and read what I have wrote and reinforce the idea that he and I are on the same page...albeit described quite difference. He would love to read this thread as I am trilled to see his mirror interpretation. We have only very minor differences like the .com only thing (i own zznq.buzz and think it's brandable, and i can come up with many examples)

 

[fatter]

I agree with an earlier post if you put up a poll on a list of brandable domains? you would get results all over the place as to which ones are brandable. Then people would comment must have been newbies voting.

Joe T

 

[JayT]

@urlurl, shame you won't read the whole thing...the forum is for you to enjoy so treat yourself to some entertainment and read Dont just throw you opinion down and run away oblivious to others! How is that fun?!...only 2 pages.

Just the very word, brandable, it is a special kind of word. It's like matter. There must be antimatter. There must be 'generic', non brandable domains too. The caveat is to "define a brandable domain" My peeve here is everyone is casting a wide net trying to claim MANY (almost all) kinds of domains are 'brandable'. You are saying similar. My point is that people are trying to use it way too loosely, calling true generics brandables too. Is lightbulb.com a brandable domain? It could be but I have explained extensively why it is too generic to be called this. It is dangerous because domainers are believing a risky / bubble idea. The ones that believe their BS might see a profile full of domain like lighbulb.com, goldchart.org, alligator.com, quickhire.com and think that their profile is similar, but just on a smaller budget. WRONG, their profile is nothing like these 1 words, or 2 meaningful two words.

So I said brandables are bad for domainers lol...maybe I need to fix this saying. I think a very special kind of person can put 2 word 'brandable type' words together and get it right often enough. These domains are not selling as often as 2 generic words though...not even nearly as much. Few people can put abstract 2 words together and succeed. If you are not totally (and i mean this) confident you are doing it right, then you are doing it wrong. I have some weird 100% brandables too. Almost everyone has a false hope that it can work for them, and their entire profile are made of brandable and nothing remotely generic...it is bad situation. Trying to help you all, to show you what is generic, and make you consider that maybe you need to be reg'ing generic instead.

@fatter haha, yes. I have thought of this. It would make no sense, the poll, to anyone... I am trying to come to agreement so we can understand together, and agree what is, and what isnt...for the most part.

 

[eurorealtor]

There was a huge debate in chat room.

Brandable = Domain you can build a brand on... isn't that obvious?

 

[frank-germany]

is apple a brandable ?
yes
if you don't use it for fruits


is
qcwjj.com brandable?
yes
but not for english and german language
and therefore not for international use

is
pkws.com brandable?
I bet it is !
just bought it
( german for automobiles )
- just bought it -

 

[fatter]

Brandable = Domain you can build a brand on... isn't that obvious?

But couldn't you do that with most words in our vocabulary.

 

[JayT]

@Joeguy1014 , I'm happy to see you agreeing with me for the most part. My OP explains my position pretty much completely. I refer to my definitions over and over when faced with specific examples trying to discredit me, and my simple definition settles it. It's hard for people to admit that something so complex can be broken down simply, and work 99% of the time. I know that sometimes, there are domains that are on the borderline. But, for 99% of domains, it is very straight forward. In the beginning people were arguing the very straight forward ideas. Naturally this evolved into them making me solve the more 'debatable' ones. I am not perfect and once in awhile I did make a mistake. Mostly, I got emotional and used a 'mocking' statement, which doesn't come across so well online. I need to stick to my own advice and just type 'as matter of factly'? (factly? did i just invent a brandable?!)...see I like to have fun.

As for "red fox vs red squares" it's simple. Red fox is a real thing. It's a generic. It is prudent to define it as generic, otherwise we are not drawing lines. In reality, 'red fox' only means one thing. 'Red square' is one of those boarderline ones. It is extremely difficult to categorize. Me saying one way or another is Pandoras box.

People love to pick words that 'sound good' but not give a definition, just random examples to try proving a point. The method is flawed. This is happening OVER and OVER with everyone. Here's how I interpret their thinking (as a single example, as they are doing to us *grin*): They will say White House isn't brandable. And they're right, it isn't...for our purposes as domainers. HOWEVER, whitehouse.com was a porn site. And despite all rational that beforehand it was generic, it was spun into a brandable. In practice this can be applied to every domain (for all intensive purposes). SO I say again, I WILL turn ANY domain brandable if you let me. They are literally saying: it's just "a feeling, emotion, or experince" - Under their rational, EVERY domain is a brandable. Do they not understand philosophy? Once I corner the smarter ones here here they like to say, "yes, they are all brandable"! Well to that I say: It's stupid to use the terminology then, as it usless to us without offering any subtancance. You are calling your domain "canine dog".

This thread will seem like a pacasso painting when sentiment toward 'brandables' goes negative.

 

[disaac81]

@Joeguy1014 , I'm happy to see you agreeing with me for the most part. My OP explains my position pretty much completely. I refer to my definitions over and over when faced with specific examples trying to discredit me, and my simple definition settles it. It's hard for people to admit that something so complex can be broken down simply, and work 99% of the time. I know that sometimes, there are domains that are on the borderline. But, for 99% of domains, it is very straight forward. In the beginning people were arguing the very straight forward ideas. Naturally this evolved into them making me solve the more 'debatable' ones. I am not perfect and once in awhile I did make a mistake. Mostly, I got emotional and used a 'mocking' statement, which doesn't come across so well online. I need to stick to my own advice and just type 'as matter of factly'? (factly? did i just invent a brandable?!)...see I like to have fun.

As for "red fox vs red squares" it's simple. Red fox is a real thing. It's a generic. It is prudent to define it as generic, otherwise we are not drawing lines. In reality, 'red fox' only means one thing. 'Red square' is one of those boarderline ones. It is extremely difficult to categorize. Me saying one way or another is Pandoras box.

People love to pick words that 'sound good' but not give a definition, just random examples to try proving a point. The method is flawed. This is happening OVER and OVER with everyone. Here's how I interpret their thinking (as a single example, as they are doing to us *grin*): They will say White House isn't brandable. And they're right, it isn't...for our purposes as domainers. HOWEVER, whitehouse.com was a porn site. And despite all rational that beforehand it was generic, it was spun into a brandable. In practice this can be applied to every domain (for all intensive purposes). SO I say again, I WILL turn ANY domain brandable if you let me. They are literally saying: it's just "a feeling, emotion, or experince" - Under their rational, EVERY domain is a brandable. Do they not understand philosophy? Once I corner the smarter ones here here they like to say, "yes, they are all brandable"! Well to that I say: It's stupid to use the terminology then, as it usless to us without offering any subtancance. You are calling your domain "canine dog".

This thread will seem like a pacasso painting when sentiment toward 'brandables' goes negative.

It is hard to give examples and full explanations without writing as much as a chapter in a book. I love brand naming like probably much of us do. When you refer to 'they', who are you referring to? Are you suggesting you are an expert in this field?

Phonetics, language and sound symbolism are just a few areas that need to be researched to understand why something might work better than something else. We hopefully are all learning everyday and therefore creating better \ acquiring better brand names through our work in this industry.

I just don't get the negativity...who does not understand? why?

 

[disaac81]

Every word creates it's own pattern of memories, experiences and yes emotions. Those triggers will be different for everyone, based on your own life experiences.

Language is complex, branding and brand naming is a deep area. To disrespect that is being rather rude to that industry tbh.

 

[slader23]

Brand-able:
Levels in terms of desirability, marketability and overall quality.
1. One word generic emd domains that have a high variability in terms of the different industries that can be marketed through the name. Category defining one word names do not fit into this. i.e Cigarettes.com or Blog.com vs Striker.com or Jade.com. These tend to be the most desirable names on the market.

Brand-ability of one word generics(out of 10)--> 8/10 to 10/10.

Price Range: XXX,XXX+

2. Two word generics, two word EMDs and 4L Pronouncables : Same rules as #1 apply except two word generics that are non-emd fit into this group like Bluenote.com or FastFunds.com and 4L pronounceable's like VIVO.com . The names with higher quality and marketability end up closer to the price range of group #1.

Brand-ability of two word generics and emds (out of 10)-->6/10 to 9/10

Price Range--> X,XXX to low XXX,XXX+

3. Made up words---> 4L,5L, 6L domains. For the most part the price level of these names are is in the low x,xxx range and I'd consider them as the lower end in terms of brand-ability.

Brandability of made up words 4L,5L, 6L (out of 10) 4/10 to 6/10

Price Range---> xxx to X,xxx+

Level 3 has the highest amount of inconsistency in price and brand-ability due to the incredible amount of divergence between names, it is the least liquid and represents the biggest investment risk, apart from the 4L.com market which has set price levels that fluctuate.


This is all my opinion and does not represent the beliefs of other domainers.

IMHO:
The amount of brand-ability correlates to the marketability of a name and the options it gives an end user to make a memorable impact in its target market. This is the reason why heavy price tags are given to names like insider.com or orchard.com because they are words that can be used in many different markets.

Would you remember Uber if it was Touxi? Probably not and being an affiliate taxi service that links people to willing drivers, having a memorable and simple name is key. The name Uber has meaning...it means an outstanding and or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing so people can attach emotion to the word and that makes it memorable.

TBH I'm not sure why your making this such a difficult argument. Something being brandable means that the name has actionable desirability to an end user for the purposes of building a brand, nothing more nothing less. The more brand-able the name the more desirable it is to an end user. There is a hierarchy to brand-ables and your definition of brand-ables accounts for the lowest strata. If anything your definition denotes "lesser brandables".