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

[Joseph Selbie]

Tom,

 

>From everything you say, it sounds like .com is unnecessary. Happy
designing!

 

Joseph Selbie

Founder, CEO Tristream

http://www.tristream.com

 

From: Tom Dell'Aringa [mailto:pixelmech at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Joseph Selbie
Cc: IxDA Discuss
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Branding - including .com in logo/name?

 

On 9/6/07, Joseph Selbie <jselbie at tristream.com> wrote:

I think there are lot of important questions that need to be answered before
you could decide. 


Good points, Joe. I can say that they are a successful offline company in
event management. They are essentially building a portal where they can
allow their clients to use the services of DC they already use, but in a
more efficient manner, and it lets them do additional things. They have
named this portal something different than their company name, but it is
associated with their normal name. 

So they will be offering this to basically their existing clientele. Their
clients are hotels which are already pretty tight with my client.

I guess I'm thinking of it similar to when new online tools come out from
people/companies I know. For example, when Crazy Egg came out, it was
branded without the .com. When they are talked about in web dev circles,
nobody says "Crazy Egg.com" it's always just "Crazy Egg". It seems like if
it's .com, it's assumed as such already.

And I like their logo - and it would be less appealing with the .com
attached to it. ( See here <http://crazyegg.com/> )