Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?
from the they're-baaaaaaaack,-sort-of dept
Alarm:clock has a post talking about how Xoom, an online competitor to Western Union for sending cash around the world, has raised a lot of money from a bunch of top tier VC firms. However, the name stood out, because Xoom was the name of one of the more ridiculously overhyped (and underdelivering) dot coms of the first bubble era. It's clear that this Xoom has nothing to do with the original Xoom, but it seems odd that a company would want to associate itself with a company that had a terrible reputation, constantly over-promoted itself, and kept trying to come up with a an idea that actually worked (their main thing was selling clip art, but they were mostly known for being a GeoCities clone). The company did eventually sucker NBC into buying it and merging it with its own struggling Snap/NBCi web portal, before the whole thing collapsed due to the complete pointlessness of the offering (Snap.com having also recently been reborn as a new, totally unrelated company). It's fun to mock the names of some web 2.0 companies, but are the naming choices really that thin that it's worth bringing back names that were closely associated with big flameouts and only died a few years ago?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
free traffic
Think of all the old websites out there that still link to the old xoom site, links advertising free hosting, or to homepages that no longer exist on xoom. This sort of traffic could bring in several hundred visitors a day. and all absolutely free.. they could build a very successful business this way.
I've actually been thinking I should buy Flooz.com for my new web 2.0 version of pets.com for this very reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YaY
If you make a Podcast on your Blog about bulding the Web2.0 version of Pets.com on the Flooz.com domain because of the the old incoming links are good for business , I am totally RSSing that .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of Good Domains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nunya_bidness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exhume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cant have it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cant have it all
J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner... ;)
Yeah, sometimes it's so easy to forget that sarcasm and irony HTML tags don't work in all browsers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tired of Web 2.0 already
In fact, when I first started hearing about this, I thought that the web was expected to shift to Internet 2 or some other more advanced network technology like using IPv6 or something bringing about a new era in security and robustness.
Instead, this is some garbage buzzword used to describe to luddites (i.e. Wall Street Stock Brokers that know nothing about technology) that something has changed in the web to warrant them locking back to the web for investment opportunity.
It is the keyword for a new Dot.Com bubble that is expanding towards another sharp pin.
All that has changed is that over the last 5 - 10 years, there has been an increasing focus on delivering online web applications which can mimic desktop application by using AJAX or some other technology that doesn't require full page refreshes in order to show changes in UI states. The only reason why they are calling this Web 2.0 is that some somewhat clever marketing guru over at O'Reilly Media needed a hook to start getting people to buy more books about web development, so they coined the phrase Web 2.0. Wall Street picked it up as a way of invoking some sense of urgency in re-examining the web as an investment opportunity and source of lucrative IPO's.
It is a CORPORATE fabrication, only idiot CEO's and ignorant web columnists and bloggers promote the idea that the web has undergone any evolutionary change and continue to promote this concept.
If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
Amen 2.0, brotha...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's short attention spans.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
The Celtic Fiddler Violins and accessories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
name re-use....
I think not. Call me a little bit supersititious but coming from an old nautical family the one thing we take very seriously is the history associated with naming things. If a name has a bad history, don't use it again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brand recognition
These company names are HOUSEHOLD brand names that cost a company billions in advertising to make sure you remember their name. And since the public's memory is incredibly short it's rare to find someone that remembers that Atari and others actually went bankrupt years ago. All the new company has to do is get a product out there and make sure the public knows about it, in effect let them know they are still around.
It's a major win to grab a household word as your company name. If you can't find a household word, just follow Microsoft's example and grab something descriptive from the house itself:
word
office
windows
notepad
power
point
...etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drqx xtpqok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oycjnx peduvtz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smestaj u Sokobanji
[ link to this | view in chronology ]