5 ms·

I wouldn't call them crazy. Rakuten is a Japanese brand that bought Buy.com. I believe they're just consolidating. Is it an unmemorable, weird name? Yeah, but i

I wouldn't call them crazy. Rakuten is a Japanese brand that bought Buy.com. I believe they're just consolidating. Is it an unmemorable, weird name? Yeah, but it isn't like someone sat in a room and said "You know what I think? I think Rakuten would sound much better than Buy." Bad ideas and poor execution happen a lot, but this was a planned move that has some meaning behind it.

davemel37 14y ago
Can you find one brand using a generic and relevant to the category name dominate a category? Branding is not just a go with your gut instinct...it is a science that analyzes all the Kleenex, xerox, and googles of the world, the categories that are owned by brands and figures out what works... Generic brands like apple and amazon are not relevant generic terms to their category so it can be associated in the mind with that category.
- ig1 14y ago
  Facebook (I'm getting downvoted because presumably people don't realize Facebook was a common generic term used for the book universities gave to students with photos, etc. of other student to encourage socialization at the start of the year)
  - LeafStorm 14y ago
    No, it's because because "facebook" has never been used as a common noun to describe social networks - as in, "I'll go log onto the facebook," referring to MySpace or LiveJournal or something. This conversation is about businesses which are named after the field they are in. (The equivalent is if Facebook were named "Social Network.") Also, I doubt most people have really heard of the concept of a physical facebook. From my understanding, it's limited to Harvard and maybe other schools around there.
    - ig1 14y ago
      They completely dominated the space that the traditional facebook was in though, that's what they started out as. Obviously they've grown to encompass a much wider space since then.
- ansgri 14y ago
  Though I don't know of any international ones, there should be regional examples. E.g. mail.ru. Though now it lost its first place to yandex.ru. It seems like those who own generic names are getting too old to be competitive.
- lunchbox 14y ago
  - 1-800-FLOWERS - 1-800-CONTACTS - hotels.com
  - davemel37 14y ago
    I have no idea what those brands stand for...I don't associate them with anything other than something probably related to the word... when I think I need a hotel I don't think go to hotels.com I think go to price line or kayak.
    - jonknee 14y ago
      If I had to guess I bet the flowers one is about flowers, the contacts one about contacts and the hotels one is about hotels... Amazing!
      - davemel37 14y ago
        branding is much more than just being associated with a category. It is about how people perceive your brand. I cannot tell you anything about those brands other than they do something related to that category... Here is a good contrast, "I associate Southwest Airlines with Cheap, No Frills Flights." I don't know anything about those brands... the name doesn't tell me anything about WHY I SHOULD BUY FROM THEM.
- notahacker 14y ago
  Buy.com is no more generic than American Airlines or Deutsche Bank, or Sky, or Claro. There's a huge number of brands that use the [nation] [generic term] format, including many major international banks, airlines, and utility companies many of which totally dominate their domestic market and/or are significant internationally Even if you're looking at the world's biggest brands and companies, then IBM, GE, GM, FedEx, NBC, BBC and even the likes of Microsoft and Coca-Cola are clearly abbreviations of very generic terms. A significant proportion of the rest are simply people's names. For all the "science" and lack thereof that goes into brand investments, generic names tend to last and "cute" names often turn out to be short-lived gimmicks
  - davemel37 14y ago
    None of those brands own a category!!! You can make money with any name if you put enough money behind it...branding is about owning a category in peoples minds to the point of them saying, "pass me a Kleenex, or just Google it, or make a xerox."
    - philwelch 14y ago
      IBM used to own a category.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - notahacker 14y ago
      I'm sorry, but I remain utterly convinced that Coca Cola and Microsoft will come closer to ever owning a category than "that Amazon clone with the funny Japanese name they devote large amounts of homepage real estate to explaining", FedEx is definitely a verb, and the others all appear in "top brands" lists compiled by the people who make a fortune in branding. And the brand becomes verb thing happens almost accidentally which is why, no matter how much Microsoft's branding team wants us to, nobody ever asks their friends to "just Bing it", whereas everyone "Xeroxes" stuff despite the xerography company in question actively spending to discourage the genericization of its trademark.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Diapers.com, Ancestry.com and 1-800-CONTACTS come to mind. Hotels.com, Staples.com, Drugstore.com and Overstock.com may be close. Some like Pets.com obviously didn't work out. Update: stamps.com and audible.com are also good examples.
  - davemel37 14y ago
    See my comment below... branding is about owning a category...you can still make money with a generic name but it will never replace the category name.
    - jonknee 14y ago
      I don't care about your comment below, in the one that I replied to you asked, "Can you find one brand using a generic and relevant to the category name dominate a category". I could and I did.
      - davemel37 14y ago
        none of those brands own a category in my mind. They are successful for other reasons... Despite their names, not because of them.
        overcyn 14y ago
        This is just a No True Scotsman argument. You've been given at least a dozen examples but none of them are "dominating" enough for you. Blogger, Dropbox, XVideos.
        davemel37 14y ago
        all three of these brands are brandable. I don't think you understand the objective of branding if you think no true scotsman applies here. Branding is the battle for peoples perceptions, and follows the rules of how our minds perceive things. Your mind is not capable of assigning meaning to a generic term. You can know what they do, but you cant associate it with a category. "American Airlines" does not mean an American Airline in anybody's mind. Just as Buy.com doesn't mean anything other than a website that might have something to do with the word buy. Generic domains have all sorts of other value, and you can make lots of money without a good brand. But... Branding is about one thing only... Associating your name as the "Go-To" folks in a category. That association is simply not possible with a generic name.
- philwelch 14y ago
  "Xerox" was meant to be generic, since the technology is called "xerography".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Sayter 14y ago
  Given that Kleenex is just "Clean-X" and Xerox is just "Xero(graphy)-X" (they were known as Haloid before commercializing xerography and rebranding), those two names are actually just an "X" away from being generic.
sek 14y ago
This way you are also able to sponsor international events like the Olympics, not possible with buy.com.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
> Is it an unmemorable, weird name? Another way of putting that is "unique"—and unique names are very valuable, both classically for establishing identity, but even more so these days: You want google searches for your name to end up on your site, not giving vague "everything on the internet" results. Of course the real reason here is that Rakuten is an enormous steamroller in Japan (basically: Japan's version of Amazon), and if they're going to consolidate, they're hardly going to change the familiar name that's accompanied their success, especially not for some vague generic term. [Recently I've happened to read various stories on "inc.com" and they've all been absolutely idiotic. Does anybody actually read this site?!]

davemel37 14y ago

Can you find one brand using a generic and relevant to the category name dominate a category? Branding is not just a go with your gut instinct...it is a science that analyzes all the Kleenex, xerox, and googles of the world, the categories that are owned by brands and figures out what works... Generic brands like apple and amazon are not relevant generic terms to their category so it can be associated in the mind with that category.

ig1 14y ago
Facebook (I'm getting downvoted because presumably people don't realize Facebook was a common generic term used for the book universities gave to students with photos, etc. of other student to encourage socialization at the start of the year)
- LeafStorm 14y ago
  No, it's because because "facebook" has never been used as a common noun to describe social networks - as in, "I'll go log onto the facebook," referring to MySpace or LiveJournal or something. This conversation is about businesses which are named after the field they are in. (The equivalent is if Facebook were named "Social Network.") Also, I doubt most people have really heard of the concept of a physical facebook. From my understanding, it's limited to Harvard and maybe other schools around there.
  - ig1 14y ago
    They completely dominated the space that the traditional facebook was in though, that's what they started out as. Obviously they've grown to encompass a much wider space since then.
ansgri 14y ago
Though I don't know of any international ones, there should be regional examples. E.g. mail.ru. Though now it lost its first place to yandex.ru. It seems like those who own generic names are getting too old to be competitive.
lunchbox 14y ago
- 1-800-FLOWERS - 1-800-CONTACTS - hotels.com
- davemel37 14y ago
  I have no idea what those brands stand for...I don't associate them with anything other than something probably related to the word... when I think I need a hotel I don't think go to hotels.com I think go to price line or kayak.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    If I had to guess I bet the flowers one is about flowers, the contacts one about contacts and the hotels one is about hotels... Amazing!
    - davemel37 14y ago
      branding is much more than just being associated with a category. It is about how people perceive your brand. I cannot tell you anything about those brands other than they do something related to that category... Here is a good contrast, "I associate Southwest Airlines with Cheap, No Frills Flights." I don't know anything about those brands... the name doesn't tell me anything about WHY I SHOULD BUY FROM THEM.
notahacker 14y ago
Buy.com is no more generic than American Airlines or Deutsche Bank, or Sky, or Claro. There's a huge number of brands that use the [nation] [generic term] format, including many major international banks, airlines, and utility companies many of which totally dominate their domestic market and/or are significant internationally Even if you're looking at the world's biggest brands and companies, then IBM, GE, GM, FedEx, NBC, BBC and even the likes of Microsoft and Coca-Cola are clearly abbreviations of very generic terms. A significant proportion of the rest are simply people's names. For all the "science" and lack thereof that goes into brand investments, generic names tend to last and "cute" names often turn out to be short-lived gimmicks
- davemel37 14y ago
  None of those brands own a category!!! You can make money with any name if you put enough money behind it...branding is about owning a category in peoples minds to the point of them saying, "pass me a Kleenex, or just Google it, or make a xerox."
  - philwelch 14y ago
    IBM used to own a category.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - notahacker 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but I remain utterly convinced that Coca Cola and Microsoft will come closer to ever owning a category than "that Amazon clone with the funny Japanese name they devote large amounts of homepage real estate to explaining", FedEx is definitely a verb, and the others all appear in "top brands" lists compiled by the people who make a fortune in branding. And the brand becomes verb thing happens almost accidentally which is why, no matter how much Microsoft's branding team wants us to, nobody ever asks their friends to "just Bing it", whereas everyone "Xeroxes" stuff despite the xerography company in question actively spending to discourage the genericization of its trademark.
jonknee 14y ago
Diapers.com, Ancestry.com and 1-800-CONTACTS come to mind. Hotels.com, Staples.com, Drugstore.com and Overstock.com may be close. Some like Pets.com obviously didn't work out. Update: stamps.com and audible.com are also good examples.
- davemel37 14y ago
  See my comment below... branding is about owning a category...you can still make money with a generic name but it will never replace the category name.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    I don't care about your comment below, in the one that I replied to you asked, "Can you find one brand using a generic and relevant to the category name dominate a category". I could and I did.
    - davemel37 14y ago
      none of those brands own a category in my mind. They are successful for other reasons... Despite their names, not because of them.
      - overcyn 14y ago
        This is just a No True Scotsman argument. You've been given at least a dozen examples but none of them are "dominating" enough for you. Blogger, Dropbox, XVideos.
        davemel37 14y ago
        all three of these brands are brandable. I don't think you understand the objective of branding if you think no true scotsman applies here. Branding is the battle for peoples perceptions, and follows the rules of how our minds perceive things. Your mind is not capable of assigning meaning to a generic term. You can know what they do, but you cant associate it with a category. "American Airlines" does not mean an American Airline in anybody's mind. Just as Buy.com doesn't mean anything other than a website that might have something to do with the word buy. Generic domains have all sorts of other value, and you can make lots of money without a good brand. But... Branding is about one thing only... Associating your name as the "Go-To" folks in a category. That association is simply not possible with a generic name.
philwelch 14y ago
"Xerox" was meant to be generic, since the technology is called "xerography".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Sayter 14y ago
Given that Kleenex is just "Clean-X" and Xerox is just "Xero(graphy)-X" (they were known as Haloid before commercializing xerography and rebranding), those two names are actually just an "X" away from being generic.

sek 14y ago

This way you are also able to sponsor international events like the Olympics, not possible with buy.com.

snogglethorpe 14y ago

> Is it an unmemorable, weird name? Another way of putting that is "unique"—and unique names are very valuable, both classically for establishing identity, but even more so these days: You want google searches for your name to end up on your site, not giving vague "everything on the internet" results. Of course the real reason here is that Rakuten is an enormous steamroller in Japan (basically: Japan's version of Amazon), and if they're going to consolidate, they're hardly going to change the familiar name that's accompanied their success, especially not for some vague generic term. [Recently I've happened to read various stories on "inc.com" and they've all been absolutely idiotic. Does anybody actually read this site?!]