[IxDA Discuss] Branding - including .com in logo/name?

[Jeff White]

I see a couple of other possible reasons to keep the URL in the logotype,
not sure I agree with them, but food for thought if nothing else.

1. Amazon is a bad example for this, but let's just say they couldn't get
amazon.com, but went with amazoninc.com or whatever. This is the case with
lots businesses. Adding the .com to the end of the logotype lets the
consumer of the logo quickly know where they can find out more, and that the
URL is exactly the same as the company name, just with .com at the end.
Eliminates the possible question: "now what is amazon's web address?". Also
decreases time to read the logo + URL, possibly increases brand awareness,
etc.

2. It eliminates the need to list a separate URL - more advertising is built
right into the logo. This has lots of implications like fitting more info
into small ad spots, etc.

That said, I don't really like it for no other reason than it feels cheap &
looks bad to me. But, those are a couple of arguments for keeping it. Also,
I would guess lots of folks just google the company name regardless of
whether the URL is somewhere in the logo or not.

On 9/6/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>
> If it is primarily on the web, and if it need the 'cool new web ap' to
> differentiate itself in the marketplace, then by all means use the .com (it
> can easily be dropped later). Otherwise, no.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 01:27PM, "Tom Dell'Aringa" <
> pixelmech at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >This isn't necessarily IX, but maybe it is. I have a client who is
> working
> >on a new app, a portal. Let's say the name is "DirtyChicken". Their logo
> is
> >a simple logotype of "DirtyChicken.com"
> >
> >I've always wondered if the ".com" is necessary in the logo -
> particularly
> >because it isn't .net or .org - .com being the most popular. It seems to
> me
> >that successful sites brand themselves as what they are indistinct from
> the
> >web address (even though the name is the same). Obvious examples are
> Amazon
> >and Yahoo, but I think it even rings true for smaller brands too.
> >
> >I feel like it's better to start off as DirtyChicken without the .com,
> what
> >do you think? Is there anything gained by keeping it or lost by losing it
> in
> >your opinion?
> >
> >Tom
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>