“AdAge is wrongly assigning blame to Enfactico and yes, I’m defending them” was written by SuperSpy… yes.. the famous SuperSpy at MediaBistro!
This deserves an article by itself, mostly because SuperSpy is one of my favorite bloggers and I do consider her one of my friends, but honestly for as well versed and smart she is, she is really wrong on this one. She is lambasting the adage article written by Rupal Parekh that we cited in our article
Here are the two major tidbits on her story:
1. Agencies very, very rarely get to just go ahead and purchase URLs for clients who generally, demand all sorts of approvals before anything is ever done. We don’t have carte blanche like AdAge is implying. It’s possible that Dell stalled on Enfactico’s request and/or just decided not to purchase it. Anyone who has worked in an agency knows this is very possible. AdAge is wrongly assigning blame to Enfactico and yes, I’m defending them. I can’t believe it either, but right is right and this assumption is wrong.
The red tape problem you mentioned with this could have been settled easily with a phone call or an e-mail to Dell for approval. Afterall Dell has no problem spending 4.5 billion for advertising for 3 years, and they have a long history of buying domain names for their products.
Clearly http://www.inspiron.com goes to Dell … so why wouldn’t their other trademarked products. Such as the ADAMO covered by Trademark number:
Feel free to look them up at the US Patent and Trademark office There is no legal concern here, also worth noting that someone was already sitting on the domain… that had no legal right to it in the first place, Dell / Enfatico could have easily used the WIPO procedure hold up their already owned trademark and recieved the domain name using the legal framework that punishes cybersquaters and awards the trademark holder.
That being stated, I am now completely at a loss regarding how BDA’s appear to work, because we do everything in our power to help the client, including buying a domain name for them, making them the legal owner of it and just making us the technical contact. This is a no-brainer if the client already has the trademark.
Now for the worst part of this:
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THE DOMAIN NAME AND WEBSITE HAVEN’T BEEN DISCUSSED FOR THE PAST 2 YEARS WHILE THE PRODUCT WAS BEING DEVELOPED?
This is mind baffling, Enfatico hasn’t spoken to Dell about that domain name for the past 2 years while the product was getting ramped up for launch? WTF was going on?
Generally, we are looking at domain names even before looking at Trademarks, what’s the sense of owning a trademark if you can’t even brand it properly with a corresponding domain name?
This is not rocket science, this is good business.
Now for part 2 of the article:
2. The brand isn’t actually called Adamo. It’s called Adamo by Dell, so why would they even be interested in Adamo? Often, brands purchase similar URLS for their product and have it redirect users to the main client site. We all know this, as well. Dell already owns Adamobydell.com. What it sounds like is that the company was unsure as whether to fork over $750 for a like-minded URL.
Inspiron by Dell seems to go to http://www.inspiron.com … Next time I will try go go to “Wii by Nintendo” … but that seems to go to Wii.com ..
This is 101 in online Advertising, you make it as easy as possible for your potential clients to find you, that means using the common “street name” and “plain speak” of the products you sell if not offending…
oh.. and there was a third part of the article I wanted to address:
There. Case closed.
Not. Even close.
In closing, this is a clear lack of understand of Digital advertising, it’s why SEO and SMO firms are growing at the expense of BDA’s … because it doesn’t get any plainer than this, they have no clue what they are doing.