Typosquatting: An Invesstment in Stoopidity
In recent weeks, both Google and Yahoo have come under public scrutiny for profiting from a practice known as typosquatting. A clever way for publishers and advertisers to capitalize on spelling-impaired web users, typosquatting is the parking of a domain name spelled a few characters differently than a major branded site, as in “Goggle.com”.
Once considered amateurish and ineffective, typosquatting has refined its tactics, enticed the big name ad networks, and become a lucrative stream of emarketing in its own right. Yet as the practice grows in prominence, it raises more and more concerns over trademark infringement and the intentional misleading of web users.
According to recent estimates, about 15 percent of all web traffic originates from users typing directly in to the URL box. As there is obviously no such thing as a spell check for URLs (to date), a good deal of hastily or ignorantly typed addresses are inaccurate. Instead of returning to a dead-end “404 File Not Found” page, these sites started to get bought out and filled with ads relevant to the product or service of the site being emulated.
It didn’t take long for the major ad networks like Google to get in on the profits and start selling inventory to countless typosquatting sites. Operators soon developed programs to devise thousands of misspellings for a given site, register them as domains, and park them on a trial basis to find which provided the most erroneous landings.
Typosquatters have since thought of just about everything. Commas next to periods, phonetic misspellings, abandoned brand names or campaigns, and interchanged address suffixes (such as .com for .org) are all effective strategies.
With the sophistication of typosquatting inevitably came the backlash of the major brands, who justifiably claim the sites make a profit off their names and detract from traffic to their own sites. While they’ve tried a number of methods to combat the practice, such as filing lawsuits and buying out misspelled domains of their own, they have yet to formally define typosquatting as a legal infringement. There is no doubt that typosquatting negatively affects the sites which it parrots to some extent, but determining exactly what constitutes trademark infringement in a web URL is a very subjective matter.
A more legally debatable question at this time is whether or not the sites do more help than they cause harm to the users who find them. In most cases, users will quickly realize their mistake and not think they are actually on the page they intended to visit. And frequently, they are led to sites which can help them find what they need, if not the actual site they attempted to type in.
Yet fundamentally, typosquatting intends to mislead users by utilizing an advance understanding of what they are looking for. On top of that, they frequently transport surfers to sites with pornographic, gambling-related, or otherwise questionable content, an interaction which can incidentally detract from their identification with the brand in question.
Regardless, typosquatting has gained the most valuable currency that exists on the Internet: the support of Google, Yahoo, and MSN. In addition to supplying ad inventory for these sites, the giants have attempted to extend the reach of their search engines by claiming misspelled sites for themselves. Internet Explorer users, for example, are by default greeted with an MSN search box any time they stumble onto a site that is not registered to anyone.
As long as idiocy rages on the Internet, and as long as major companies try to profit from it, typosquatting will continue to be a viable marketing avenue in the online space.
Reader Comments.
No comments yet
Leave a Comment
Article Sponsor
More Features
-
Loading ...
Latest News
- Funding in Brief: $10M for Spongecell, $8M for Prolexic February 9th 2012 ADOTAS – Rich media ad company Spongecell has raised $10 million [...] more »
- Google AdMob Axes Minimum Bids, Targeting Fees February 9th 2012 ADOTAS - As of Feb. 15, Google will change its [...] more »
- Infographic: HootSuite Analyses Social Media Impact of Super Bowl Ads February 7th 2012 ADOTAS - So, it’s the Tuesday after the Super Bowl, [...] more »
- Facebook to Serve Mobile Ads in Coming Weeks February 6th 2012 ADOTAS – According to a Financial Times report, Facebook will [...] more »
- Survey: 39 Percent of Mobile Users Responded to Super Bowl Ads Via Mobile February 6th 2012 ADOTAS - During the Super Bowl yesterday, mobile ad network [...] more »
- Sponsormob Leads the Way Into RTB for Mobile February 3rd 2012 ADOTAS – For more than half a decade, Berlin-based tech [...] more »
- Weird Study: Mobile Purchasing While in the Bathroom on the Rise February 3rd 2012 DM CONFIDENTIAL - According to 11mark, three-quarters of Americans with mobile [...] more »
Features
- Attribution Online: Introducers and Influencers and Closers… Oh My! February 9th 2012
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name February 9th 2012
- Rethinking the Online Advertising Ecosystem, Part One: Independent Publishers February 8th 2012
- Case Study: Social Ad Effectiveness February 8th 2012
- Video: “Build an SEO Foundation” Excerpt February 8th 2012
Spotlight
Sponsormob Leads the Way Into RTB for MobileADOTAS – For more than half a decade, Berlin-based tech firm Sponsormob has remained relevant in an industry characterized by [...] more...
Reader Favorites
Classifieds
- PS Technical Writer - SEO Data Analyst
- Interactive Project Manager
- Media Buyer
- PHP Software Engineer (Facebook Platform/Social AP
- SEO/Marketing Internship at Green Education Startu
Recent Comments
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name – ADOTAS | ShopComs.com: [...] With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a NameADOTASADOTAS – It's no longer important how
- Domain Outlook : Latest Domain News » Blog Archive » With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name - ADOTAS: [...] With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a NameADOTASADOTAS – It's no longer important how
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name: [...] and Microsoft have little to worry about over names like UnitedThis and UnitedThat. The
- ReTargeter » Attacking Bad Banners: Inaugural Edition: [...] between 0.01% to 0.1%. Even with retargeted ads, which tend to have clickthrough rates