5 ms·
Not necessarily. Perhaps it's easy to remember and it more easily found in search, but it's harder to build a brand around a generic name like markets.com. Bloo
by jeffa107 18y ago
Not necessarily. Perhaps it's easy to remember and it more easily found in search, but it's harder to build a brand around a generic name like markets.com. Bloomberg, The Street, and The Motley Fool have the advantage in this space.
- ra 18y agoThat's a moot point. When you have an AAA generic like markets.com you don't need to brand it; the whole sector is yours to own! Well done on securing this very valuable name.
- jeffa107 18y agoI'm sure the companies behind news.com, blogs.com, tickets.com, shoes.com, and most others with generic names would argue that it's not moot, that it's the exception and not the rule. You still have to make something people want, something they can't get elsewhere. markets.com doesn't seem to have that, at least not yet. It's hard to be unique in the news aggregation niche.