On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Phil Wright wrote:

> Members,
> 
> I disagree re the comments that generic names have little value.

Feel free to disagree; but with evidence.

>   1.. 90%+ of Internet Users are not really internet savvy and generally
> approach search via a branded search portal or they use the Yellow Pages

True.

> approach of simply typing in a 'generic' category to align products and
> services with unknown suppliers.

Untrue.

The client that does not know any given URL (e.g. www.amazon.com) does not
wildly type in possible URLs into the Location: bar of their browser in
the hope that they will get the right site.

They go to a search engine and type in their search criteria, wait a
second or so, and get the results they want. Were I permitted
legislatively, I could show you logfiles that definitively *prove* this
assertion. But I'm not, so you'll just have to take my word for it :)

Search engines all have their own method of ranking sites; I have not seen
a major search engine that uses the *domain* of a URL as a ranking
criterium.

>   3.. Generic websites require less promotion than non-generic websites so
> the ROI is higher, ie, once Australian Users get used to (say)
> www.wines.com.au they will automatically test www.cars.com.au or
> www.toys.com.au and so on, so the FREE feeder process is a significant
> benefit to advertisers.

Again, you're talking about people blindly entering URLs in the hope of
finding the content they're after. Maybe marketing folks do this <g> but
those of us that work for a living <g> <g> use a tool that is designed
explicitly for the purpose (that is, a search engine).

> Let there be no doubt that an advertiser having a combined corporate and
> generic website will have a competitive advantage.

Given that 1) clients use search engines or portals to find what they want
and 2) no major search engine or portal uses the domain of a URL as a
ranking criterium; there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
 
Regards,

Saliya