“Another reason to do it if you’re a company that’s in a recall situation, could be … [as part of a ] defensive strategy to limit negative publicity.” Kesmodel explained. “Let’s say you’re a producer and the recall … is of major, negative consequences for your business. You might want to just minimize the negative publicity by registering a name like that, especially if you’re concerned that there are consumers or advocacy groups that would use such a site to criticize your company, or generate some kind of negative publicity about your company,” Kesmodel added.
When it comes to the issue of potential value that ConAgra may have received (tangible and intangible), Hartzer and Hall both acknowledge the company did benefit. Hartzer focused on the protective advantages obtained. “By keeping the domain name out of the hands of others, I believe the company received a lot of great value: stopping others from setting up a web site that would include potentially damaging information is almost priceless,” Hartzer said.
Hall, on the other hand, commented on the single domain registration in the context of a broader corporate effort. “[The value] is nearly impossible to determine. Assuming ConAgra did register this domain name in an effort to avoid bad press, they did not suppress any information, but rather simply limited one means through which that information could be disseminated. Numerous other mediums covered the story and other domain name variations were registered and provided information. At best, ConAgra limited one particular, and very specific at that, medium through which someone could publicize the issue and even market services in connection therewith, as a law firm tried to do.”
Potential Downsides to Not Using the Domain Name
There was also a difference of opinion as to the potential downsides of registering, but not utilizing the domain name. According to Hartzer, keeping the name disconnected may have helped ConAgra, while putting minimal strain on consumers. “I do not see a lot of negative effects on the lack of redirecting the domain name. It might have benefited some consumers if the domain name was redirected; but redirecting it could have also allowed the media to link to and publicize that domain name, which would have then been directly connected to the company.”
Hall, however, stated that this strategy left questions unanswered. “By not putting up an informational website or redirecting it to their own official website, ConAgra has opened the door to speculation. In fact, the main question that now exists is did ConAgra register the domain name in an effort to limit bad press and make it more difficult for those affected to gather information or legal representation for the suspected contamination. Doing so is within their rights.”
Stedelbauer agreed that the move on ConAgra’s part not to redirect or develop the name in some way did raise suspicions. He stated that this action could cause some people to think the company had buried the domain after quickly registering it. “What may have been a more strategic play would have been to post basic information under the domain about the recall. By ensuring the domain did not fall into the hands of aggressive lawyers the main job was done. Then being able to control what was on the page and repeat the basic recall details, ConAgra would have avoided, had they even begun to experience any of it, appearing underhanded, and could have even pointed out their public interest by posting a special domain, had it become necessary to do that.”
Branding and Value Concerns
Stedelbauer, Hartzer and Hall agreed that the impact of the domain name not resolving to any Web page seemed to have little impact on the brand for Internet visitors who may have tried navigating directly, assuming that there was no direct association between the URL and the company who registered it.
“Many people who ‘type in’ domain names do not take the time to look up who owns that domain name,” Hartzer said. “So, making sure that there was not anything on the domain name might have been a good strategic move by the company,” Hartzer said.
Hall added some clarification. “An Internet user who uses direct navigation and ends up at a nonexistent website is likely to use a search engine to find what they expected to find from their direct navigation. I find it hard to believe that a user will give up after arriving at a nonexistent page. Rather, I foresee a search being done in an effort to get the information he/she thought to have been available via a website at the directly navigated to domain.”
Still, one could argue that direct navigation visitors who could not access a Web site could have been exposed to more adverse messaging when they went to conduct a search, since, as discussed earlier, both PPC and SEO efforts were underway on the part of competitors for the targeted search phrase.
When it came to the issue of domain name ownership, the experts also stated that ownership of deo domain names could greatly benefit companies who chose to invest in them. “There is a great deal of potential benefit - again, offensively and defensively,” Stedelbauer said. “Being able to control what is said, how it is said, when it is said, why it is said, is all PR/Communications 101.”
Hartzer agreed with Stedelbauer, but added that this value would, of course, fluctuate with the company’s relationship to the domain keywords. He added that there was plenty of room for growth for companies wanting to adopt more deo domain names. “In my opinion, not enough companies use ‘generic’ domain names,” Hartzer said. “They do not see the value in owning a generic domain name, one that contains their major keywords phrases (keyword phrases that people search for every day). There have been a lot of companies who have benefited a lot from the generic names; but still, more need to realize the value of these names and the effect it has on their business.”
Hall said that he believed in the inherent value of these deo domain names. “Generic domain names have intrinsic value,” Hall said. “The broader the possible uses and the more attractive the domain to a wider audience, the better. Domainers who make a living, or at least supplemental income, by registering and monetizing generic domain names tend to want domains like this in their portfolio. A company that chooses to register generic domain names that are relevant to its products or services can save themselves from having to purchase the domain names in the future. Moreover, it is common for companies to use generic domains for marketing campaigns or other advertising purposes.”
Use of Separate Domains for Specific Information
When asked about ConAgra’s use of the peanut butter recall domain name, and then asked to compare that use with two other sites which are currently involved in product settlements, www.petfoodsettlement.com (Menu Foods) & www.recalledpetfoodsettlement.com (Diamond Pet Food), the experts didn’t reach consensus. Penguin SES believes that may be because, in situations like this corporations need to provide information easily and accurately, and at the same time maintain a healthy distance between the issue of the moment and the long-term focus of the organization. [Note: Penguin SES has not studied either of these two sites in any detail. We merely presented them as Web sites that had information relating to a producing company of a product, and the URLs were composed of keywords that matched the product and the issue, in this case settlement vs. recall.]
Stedelbauer thought creating a separate site achieved a good balance. “This makes good business sense to me - the company shows itself to be proactive in addressing the situation, deflects all discussion of the topic away from the main brand sites, and controls what appears on those pages.”
Hall said that this type of strategy had definite benefits. “Having a domain name dedicated to a particular issue allows some separation for the company. Users are less likely to search the archives of a company’s official website to find out that there have been problems with their products. Moreover, the everyday user who is not visiting the site for information about the contamination or other problem will not be exposed to the issue,” he said. However, Hall also pointed out that the strategy is not without its own set of risks. “This obviously raises ethical concerns, but it is not illegal. Companies have made a calculated decision to direct consumers to a loosely affiliated site where the facts can be presented without ‘staining,’ so to speak, the brand anymore than necessary.”
Hartzer agreed that the name would benefit from being used. But he highlighted the issues of ease of management and Internet archiving, advising companies to use a redirect instead of building out pages on the URL.
PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 |
