The Ad Association Assault Against gTLDs, Part 2


ADOTAS – A gTLD is primarily a powerful cyber branding class act for larger brands skating on regional or global landscape. The more you digitally compress a traditional campaign, the more its brand name identity becomes fluid and rises on the global cyber-branding stage, reducing dependency on traditional advertising support.

Remember a time when in order to make an impact a synchronized series of a hundred full page newspaper ads was needed around the world on the same day? This now can be achieved instantly, repeated endlessly and all for a fraction of cost.

Imagine if thousands of big brands acquired new gTLDs and their hyper-name identity expansion was all domain-name-management-driven while fees were directed to ICANN, domain name registries, registrars, Google AdWords, SEOs, etc. What special role would be left for the ad agencies to play in this space?

A study from my firm ABC Namebank already points to some 18,700 organizations worldwide that may directly profit from the gTLD platform whereby tens of billions in new revenue may get directed to domain services sectors. Would agencies be sidelined or become new owners of domain registrars to have their power play?

The Advanced Name Game

The winners and losers of the gTLD application will ultimately be determined by true powers of the proposed names. Some very established name brands, regional or global, may not qualify. When you start to accept “one Internet, one world” a new thinking of “one name, one owner” towards market domination via name identity appears to be very desirous.

Logo-slogan-centric hammering at every branding exercise at most agencies precludes them from tackling the global corporate nomenclature complexities. According to their mandate, name identities are never the ultimate drivers of image positioning, but logos and slogans are.

It worked wonders during the last century. There is nothing so complicated about this topic as its simplicity resides in the volumes of pages of major international trade directories, where identical and similar names sit in tight columns. Is this the reason for senior marketer and brand pushers to be quiet on the gTLD naming issues, while their associations are parading papier-maché monsters and chanting about cyber-squatting?

This century, the digital compression on global cyber-branding is forcing the name identity to do all the heavy lifting, and gTLD could further accentuate that power.

The new gTLD approach is a logical and rightful nomenclature evolution towards global cyber-name branding expansions. This subject of corporate nomenclature at this level of global naming complexity is neither taught at world’s leading universities nor discussed in top MBA courses. AARM research shows that less than 2% of marketing executives have any idea about gTLD and would not be able to articulate the subject in any way without a formal study.

Wired Hub of Horror

Among the developed nations, fears of one Internet, one world is slowly growing; where some 3 billion online users would create a round-the-clock global pulse of opinion, more powerful than any single nation could withstand.

A fluid, interconnected ocean, hyper-digitized social and mobile media, and search-engine-dependent society devouring information via personalized interaction is steadily crushing the old medium. All communications whether corporate, public, social or political will face new forces of change on a global scale.

The real change cometh; the Internet will mature further and take some sudden swipes at our traditional practices.

The gTLD now shakes the tree by pushing the global cyber nomenclature issues to the top of the agenda. The flowering of AdWords marketing has pointed out that we are simply driven by name identities. The search engine model has divided the global corporate nomenclature into good workable and expandable names or duds.

What does this all mean to brand owners and creative services? Can brand holders adjust fast? Are they ready to accept the 3-billion-person online universe?

Can they recognize the ultimate goal of “one name one owner” as currently enjoyed by less 1% brand name owners of the world? Will they now acknowledge the hidden cost saving powers of the Five Star Standard of Naming? Will they become just good spectators or emerge as real game changers? Will name evaluation be the next big hush-hush term in the boardrooms?

Only those organizations that can boldly face the obvious and hidden strengths and weaknesses of their current names can truly cope with future in light of the new global cyber-name complexities. The fear factors created by half-knowledge are just part of the learning process while the successful image of name brands all over the world in the future will be increasingly and primarily driven by the power of their name.

This point alone is contentious enough to demand an open debate. What’s your move?

Check out Part 1 of Naseem Javed’s commentary here.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here