Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?

from the they're-baaaaaaaack,-sort-of dept

Tue, Jun 20th 2006 1:41am — Mike Masnick

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

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Scott, 20 Jun 2006 @ 2:17am

free traffic
I know why they wanted xoom.com

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 thread ]
Shohat, 20 Jun 2006 @ 2:41am

YaY
Lovely Idea .
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 thread ]
Sean, 20 Jun 2006 @ 3:40am

Lack of Good Domains
Heck, it could just be that there are no more good domain names left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
derp.com, 20 Jun 2006 @ 4:12am

nunya_bidness
space filler
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jerry, 20 Jun 2006 @ 4:23am

Rhymes with exhume?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
an, 20 Jun 2006 @ 5:01am

exhume?
You seem to be point out that either the client base or the company will be necrophiliacs. Am I right in assuming this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 20 Jun 2006 @ 5:31am

Cant have it all
They gotta do something, internet advertising can get pretty costly and having a snappy web name like fixmyfurnace.net just doesnt bring the masses. Its hard to get traffic if you dont advertise and using an old .com will probably get plenty of traffic, of course your site could just become some crap that gets in the way of my web surfing so it's still a two way street
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerry Kew, 20 Jun 2006 @ 5:38am

Re: Cant have it all
I have spent days and days trying name variants for web offerings, it is VERY difficult these days to come up with a name, or any variant of it which hasnt alreay gone

J
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mousky, 20 Jun 2006 @ 5:42am

There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
3 lashes for using meaningless terms such as web 1.0 and web 2.0. When they widen your local expressway do they rename it "Local Expressway 2.0"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Topher3105, 20 Jun 2006 @ 6:00am

Tired of Web 2.0 already
Look, nothing has changed on the web, there is no version 2 of the web out their.

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 thread ]
Howard, 20 Jun 2006 @ 6:14am

It's short attention spans.
Seems that the attention span of internet users in general has steadily decreased over the past several years. Nobody remembers the names that failed in 2002 anymore, so why not re-use them?
--
Howard Lee Harkness
The Celtic Fiddler Violins and accessories
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 20 Jun 2006 @ 6:37am

Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
Web 2.0 only means that soon it too will be obsolete when Web 3.0 comes out... or Web 2010. The only these wall street types think you can have innovation is by making the previous obsolete. The same is true for the housing market, developers knock down old houses and build new condos and sell for huge profits. If only there was a way to easily knock down some of the crappy - run down - web sites to make room for Web 2.0 then I would buy into the name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyshaun, 20 Jun 2006 @ 7:38am

name re-use....
So let's say I had enough money to build my own cruise ship, would it be a smart move to name it "Titanic"?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2006 @ 7:49am

its just a shell company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 20 Jun 2006 @ 7:56am

Web 2.0
I use Firefox 1.5 only. Will I be able to get WEB 2.0 with it or do I need a new internet thingy from AOL ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DV Henkel-Wallace, 20 Jun 2006 @ 8:47am

Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
I had always assumed that when people like Mike use a term like "Web 2.0" it's irony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
simon, 20 Jun 2006 @ 9:26am

Brand recognition
There are many companies who's names have come back fromt he dead to do the same thing or something else entirely. The most popular being Atari.

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 thread ]
Brian A., 20 Jun 2006 @ 10:56am

Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.

Amen 2.0, brotha...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 20 Jun 2006 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
I had always assumed that when people like Mike use a term like "Web 2.0" it's irony.

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 thread ]
Anon E. Mouse, 20 Jun 2006 @ 2:42pm

Re-use
Look what happened when they dusted off (and re-purposed) myspace.com...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ulyofskxd@mail.com, 11 Jul 2006 @ 4:28am

drqx xtpqok
ladmk dpvekjau xpamryn ctdakvf lkjen ctnbem tudqmh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
htsgzqlr@mail.com, 23 Jul 2006 @ 9:56am

oycjnx peduvtz
esiv upsnzce endyxf imgqexdlf xivh surbv hpki
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smestaj u Sokobanji, 3 Jun 2008 @ 4:55pm

Smestaj u Sokobanji
Seems that the attention span of internet users in general has steadily decreased over the past several years. Nobody remembers the names that failed in 2002 anymore, so why not re-use them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]