Why would you spend so much for advertising and not make it easy for people to find you?
Over the weekend Bret Fausett posted a picture of a full page ad in the New York Times that didn’t have a domain name. It just had an @yahoo.com email address:
Someone took a full page ad in the New York Times, provided no URL and advertised a https://t.co/6QCB0uSrjQ email address. #buyadomainname. pic.twitter.com/z9mON02Lv2
— Bret Fausett (@bretfausett) February 19, 2017
While this might seem odd, at least it’s an unusual circumstance. The ad in question isn’t from a company with a marketing department.
But I was surprised to see ads in this week’s Economist that also lacked domain names. In fact, they have no contact info at all, not even a phone number.
The first example is Slack:
I understand that slack is very popular right now and this ad is for branding. It puts the name “slack” in peoples’ minds. It reinforces that the company is legit.
So maybe I’ll forgive them. Maybe.
How about this ad from Arconic, though?
Their ad designed to bring awareness. It states “If you look past wood, stone and concrete, you’ll find us.” I’ve looked past all three of these things and can’t find Arconic because they didn’t put a web address (or any way to learn more…even a stock symbol) in their ad.
It turns out they are a $13 billion company. I can find them through Google. But what if a competitor takes out an ad right above their organic listing in Google? And why would they want me to go to Google to find them rather than go directly to Arconic.com?
I’d be remiss if I didn’t give credit where it is due, however. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an advocacy group for pharmaceutical companies, took out a full page ad with the tagline Go Boldly. They own (and display in the ad) the matching domain name GoBoldly.com.
Acro says
In China people use their QQ numbers, sometimes exclusively.
While it’s odd to take a full page add with just an email address, maybe that’s what they needed: email responses, without certain headaches of domain ownership. After all, it appears to be a complaint about politics.
Andrew Allemann says
Yeah, I can understand that one somewhat. Can’t understand the other two.
Acro says
Well, the idea with Arconic appears to be that people get curious to find out more, Google it and get the info they need. It’s a branding strategy that reminds me of pre-Internet ads in Newsweek, Fortune etc. At least, there used to be a phone number and a telex number 🙂
Slack is definitely a known brand. With this ad, they seek to pass on a message. It would not hurt to add the domain, for sure. Does Apple add it? I don’t know. 🙂
Joseph Peterson says
My take on this would be opposite yours, Andrew.
The fact that these companies can advertise merely the brand name with no TLD shown at all only serves to emphasize the strength and efficiency of .COM. People see “Slack” and “Arconic”, and they know where to go.
Juan says
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Andrew Allemann says
Fair point
Raymond Chai says
Spot on. Powerful brand doesn’t need to add .com extension. It’s well understood already.
M. Menius says
I look at these ad examples as missed opportunities, or at least compromised efforts. A website address is basically an open invitation to walk through the company’s front door and to learn more about the company (or the cause), or their products & services. Making people “search for it”, i.e. finding it through Google, isn’t a smart strategy imo. Most people expect a website – it’s just so convenient.
I believe it was Rick Schwartz who said that Madison Ave ad firms often don’t get the power of domain names. The ad reminds me of this.
wayne says
I think its a great idea, it’s got us talking about it and Googling the names.
John says
How about when TV commercials pop up and there’s not even the slightest hint what company, product or service is being promoted and advertised? Do they really think everyone is a mind reader or so familiar that whatever cryptic hint they think they are presenting will be enough? On occasions it happens, and when it does it’s “freaky,” plain and simple…
Nic says
You are missing the strategic intent (or that there is one). Perhaps the writer (of the ad) wants people to engage with Google to get there. Who knows. I loved some years ago when Prada did not have a “Prada” sign outside one of their shops in Manhattan. No ID at all. Message: if you do not know who we are, or that we are here, you are not for us; the arrogance was a strategic input to their positioning. As to the Yahoo address, it would not work for me, but it does dramatise the “personal” message.
Agenda Domains says
If anything, it proves that marketing agency’s agenda is not the same as the advertiser’s.
Testing new frontiers?
Or, plainly too clever…
A Mitchell says
Ad agencies haven’t figured out how to earn recurrent billings from domain names. The one-time commission fee that an agency could make from arranging for a $50k domain-name purchase is dwarfed by the revenue that an agency could receive from a client for running an AdWord campaign of $1M or more per month.
For online dating sites, ad spends of $2.5 million per month are not unusual. A $50k purchase of a domain name is practically a rounding error when compared to many companies’ monthly ad budgets.
Ad executives’ logic is that being cheap about domain names can be compensated for by heavy spending every month on Google and Facebook ads. To draw on an old British truism, this logic is penny wise and pound foolish.
A dilemma that some companies face, especially in the telecom and SAAS/PAAS spaces is that their ad spending is funding one of their fastest-growing competitors.
For example, users of Google Voice aren’t paying for Google Voice. It’s the telcos that are paying for it, with their advertising budgets. This is unsustainable for everyone but Google.
A big difference between AdWord spending and spending on domain names is that at the end of your AdWord campaign, you cannot take those ads and sell them on to a third party to be run again, like you could with the purchase of a domain name.