Branding decisions are one of the most important a company can make so I was pretty surprised to read on Cnet.com, that one of the founders of PayPal.com Max Levchin, who also “sold a slide-sharing service to Google, helped start Yelp, and sits on Yahoo’s board”, has named his newest company, Glow, but the company doesn’t own Glow.com or even Glow.co but the domain name Glowing.com.
Sounds like a problem
Glow is an App which “provides state-of-the-art ovulation prediction with a fertility tracker that forecasts a fertility window based on data entered by users”.
Glowing.com was owned by Scott Day so we know the domain name didn’t sell on the cheap.
The domain name was purchased in Mid-April of this year.
Despite spending what I’m sure was six figures on a domain name that doesn’t match the name of his company.
On the other hand the domain Glow.com has been owned by Intelligent Beauty since 2008 and sells beauty products so that was probably off the table.
Glow.co is owned by the same company and goes to the same site as ThingsthatGlow.com but I’m not sure that domain couldn’t have been bought for a fraction of glowing.com
Glow.me is parked and possibly could have been purchased.
Mr. Levchin company also owns the domain name glowapp.com which forwards to glowing.com, maybe they should have just went with that domain, not to confuse the issue.
They could have just names their company Glowing also.
…yep.
not attempting to obtain GLOW.ME more than likely result of antiquated 20th century thinking.
“Gee, people will identify glowing.com with my company glow because, because, because it’s got .com at the end!”
Never mind that the younger demographic is well acquainted with other extensions primarily because dot com stayed their lofty price range thru the years. The younger generations around the world are well acquainted with web sites that do not have .com at the end. Maybe someday the “geniuses” will get the message(or other younger geniuses will replace them) and there will be an epiphany of sorts regarding the irrelevant attribute of dot com.
It appears to be an eventuality as I read the prices of dot com sales coming down to earth week by week.
Glow is a euphemism for pregnancy, and telling a woman that she’s glowing is both a real observation and a metaphor for her looks during pregnancy. So I don’t see much of an issue with glow vs. glowing. That being said, my hand-registered .org just took a huge leap in value.
That being said, any hand-registered .pw just took a huge leap in value.
windy_city wrote:
“Never mind that the younger demographic is well acquainted
with other extensions”
—
This is that same “younger demographic” that wouldn’t be able to tell you where Iraq, Cyprus or New Zealand are on a map? And yet they’re so familiar with other extensions? Yep, I’m buying that.
I privately brokered the sale and price is intentionally being undisclosed. This is a great name for this company and a great service. I agree with Acro “Glowing” is euphemism for pregnancy, which is what this company is all about, and the site is designed to be accessed primarily via the app that is coming soon. The branding strategy is solid and will make more sense when you see the app.
John
Congrats on brokering the sale
If these guys paid anything over $1,500 for this domain, they SERIOUSLY over-paid.
…John, congrats on brokering the sale. I would concur in this extenuating circumstance “glowing” is appropriate for its use, as it does relate to the state of pregnancy.
You also stated that the company will be depending primarily upon an app to provide visitors/consumers easier access. That being the case, I can see where the name is close enough to perhaps accurately describe the services of the company so it definitely would suffice…
@WorldStarJobs
$1,500 sounds like a lot, when you still live with your parents, right?
Thanks Michael. I wish we Moniker:SnapNames could announce them all. Good eye picking this one up. Max Levchin presented it at the D11 conference going on through tomorrow.
@Grim
…feel free to say whatever disparaging thoughts come to mind regarding the youth of the world.
That they will replace you, me and everyone else eventually is undeniable. The likelihood that the dot com extension will be brought down to earth is already happening, with a cupla exceptions, so there is no argument there. No, I doubt that there will be a dot com “renaissance”, so to speak, although I would love to see it.
Hey, I’m as big a .com guy as the next domainer and need to see good roi on my .com investments also, but time and technology apparently has other plans for cyberspace in the 21st century…
…by the way, in my opinion glowing is worth a heap lot more than $1500 simoleons, at least I wouldn’t sell a dot com name like that for that amount…
Windy, while I didn’t direct my comment at you, for someone to think $1,500 is a lot, they *have* to be pretty young. So, disparaging thought or not, it was directed at an unrealistic thought by WorldStarJobs.
Windy,
Though you might never expect it, I just defended your arguments on my own blog. You’ll have to go there to see the exception. I also added a PS
Windy… navigation and branding are two different animals. Look around you whether a tree or a table or a person, everything has a name and will always need one. Ideally it’s better if that name can be located in cyberspace by tagging a dotCOM onto it and never even needing toy advertise it for customers to know it. Like Nike, McDon alds, Macy’s, etc.
As the Cantonese proverb goes “To be given a bad name is worse than to be born with a bad fate.”
@ Owen
“…“To be given a bad name is worse than to be born with a bad fate.””
…meaning you gotta put a whole lotta blood, sweat and tears (i.e., work) to rebuild a name while if you already have a bad fate, just might as well enjoy your plight as you ain’t gonna change your destiny?…
Ok, Owen, I will check out yer article on your site directly. Thanx…
Should have gone with glow.ing.com
🙂
The beauty of domains like Glowing is they can always sell it for more.