Comments on: URL’s and branding through search advertising http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37 a Rolnitzky blog > thoughts about Mozilla marketing and some other stuff Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:32:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: GetFirefox.com vs Firefox.com? | intothefuzz.com http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-1256 GetFirefox.com vs Firefox.com? | intothefuzz.com Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:01:28 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-1256 [...] hours later when they’re at their computer * this URL actually performed better when we did some SEM tests earlier this year (search results and t-shirts aren’t exactly apples to apples, but it’s interesting [...] [...] hours later when they’re at their computer * this URL actually performed better when we did some SEM tests earlier this year (search results and t-shirts aren’t exactly apples to apples, but it’s interesting [...]

]]> By: URL’s and branding of search marketing - Part II | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-965 URL’s and branding of search marketing - Part II | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:57:11 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-965 [...] (Note: This is the conclusion of a two-part post.  You can find part one here.) [...] [...] (Note: This is the conclusion of a two-part post.  You can find part one here.) [...]

]]> By: admin http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-772 admin Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:42:33 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-772 @ Ben: You may be right -- using "www" might not be necessary in an offline environment (like print). People have grown accustomed to a url structure in the offline world where just having a dot-suffix indicates a web address. However, we've been running tests through search using a "www" prefix that show an increase in click-thru rate vs. non-"www" prefixes. I'll post more on that soon. @Gerv: Excellent suggestion. We'll try and incorporate a ".org" into our next round of copy testing. @John: It's difficult to make extremely confident conclusions on web url's for offline use when tested in an online environment. With that said, it seems like "Firefox" would be preferable to "GetFirefox" based on this testing. The length of Mozilla.com/Firefox (the overall best performer) makes it less practical for offline use. @ Ben: You may be right — using “www” might not be necessary in an offline environment (like print). People have grown accustomed to a url structure in the offline world where just having a dot-suffix indicates a web address. However, we’ve been running tests through search using a “www” prefix that show an increase in click-thru rate vs. non-”www” prefixes. I’ll post more on that soon.

@Gerv: Excellent suggestion. We’ll try and incorporate a “.org” into our next round of copy testing.

@John: It’s difficult to make extremely confident conclusions on web url’s for offline use when tested in an online environment. With that said, it seems like “Firefox” would be preferable to “GetFirefox” based on this testing. The length of Mozilla.com/Firefox (the overall best performer) makes it less practical for offline use.

]]> By: quodlibetor http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-769 quodlibetor Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:30:27 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-769 I remember years ago--when firebird had (somewhat) recently changed its name to firefox--I was looking to install it on a new computer or a friends computer or something similar and the first url that came up was "getfirefox.com," and I actively searched for another address to go to because I thought that getfirefox.com sounded like a spoofing site. I have since learned the error of my ways, but I'm saying that people with exactly the right combination of paranoia and ignorance/knowledge might be turned off by that address. While it's now the address I tell people when I want them to "get firefox" because it is so easy to remember, it still <i>feels</i> kind of spammy to me. I'm glad you're doing this research, is the point. I remember years ago–when firebird had (somewhat) recently changed its name to firefox–I was looking to install it on a new computer or a friends computer or something similar and the first url that came up was “getfirefox.com,” and I actively searched for another address to go to because I thought that getfirefox.com sounded like a spoofing site.

I have since learned the error of my ways, but I’m saying that people with exactly the right combination of paranoia and ignorance/knowledge might be turned off by that address. While it’s now the address I tell people when I want them to “get firefox” because it is so easy to remember, it still feels kind of spammy to me.

I’m glad you’re doing this research, is the point.

]]> By: Gerv http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-768 Gerv Sat, 31 May 2008 18:05:26 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-768 Did you try "mozilla.org/firefox"? I think the fact that we are not-for-profit, which is indicated by a .org URL, might have some effect on people's assessment of our credibility. Gerv Did you try “mozilla.org/firefox”? I think the fact that we are not-for-profit, which is indicated by a .org URL, might have some effect on people’s assessment of our credibility.

Gerv

]]> By: foxiewire.com http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-767 foxiewire.com Sat, 31 May 2008 10:05:42 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-767 <strong>URL's and branding through search advertising | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog...</strong> A name is a big part of any organization’s overall brand.  And having a synchronized domain name is a key component of an organization’s presence online. Companies often spend a lot of time and resources to ensure that their address on... URL’s and branding through search advertising | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog…

A name is a big part of any organization’s overall brand.  And having a synchronized domain name is a key component of an organization’s presence online. Companies often spend a lot of time and resources to ensure that their address on…

]]> By: Craig Timpany http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-766 Craig Timpany Sat, 31 May 2008 07:34:38 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-766 Huh, getfirefox.com is legit. I saw a Google ad for that domain once and assumed it was some sleazy bastards redistributing Firefox with malware attached. After all, how would an open source project afford paid advertising, and why wouldn't it be hosted at mozilla.org? Downloading windows software linked to by google ads is a risky proposition. Take Spybot Search & Destroy for example. There was a nasty incident where malware authors were buying adsense keywords for it and tricking people into downloading a fake which actually was spyware, rather than a scanner. Like you were saying, using an apparently 3rd party domain raises questions if you've got expectations about where Firefox is hosted. Huh, getfirefox.com is legit.

I saw a Google ad for that domain once and assumed it was some sleazy bastards redistributing Firefox with malware attached. After all, how would an open source project afford paid advertising, and why wouldn’t it be hosted at mozilla.org?

Downloading windows software linked to by google ads is a risky proposition. Take Spybot Search & Destroy for example. There was a nasty incident where malware authors were buying adsense keywords for it and tricking people into downloading a fake which actually was spyware, rather than a scanner.

Like you were saying, using an apparently 3rd party domain raises questions if you’ve got expectations about where Firefox is hosted.

]]> By: Ben Goodger http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-765 Ben Goodger Sat, 31 May 2008 00:12:51 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-765 I registered GetFirefox.com four years ago. firefox.com wasn't available at the time but I felt like it was a better name anyway because of the "get". I have always felt it works better both in print and when spoken as simply "GetFirefox.com" without any www. prefix. I registered GetFirefox.com four years ago. firefox.com wasn’t available at the time but I felt like it was a better name anyway because of the “get”.

I have always felt it works better both in print and when spoken as simply “GetFirefox.com” without any www. prefix.

]]> By: John Slater http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-764 John Slater Fri, 30 May 2008 20:33:16 +0000 http://www.giantspatula.com/?p=37#comment-764 Great post, thanks David. So what's your recommendation for the URL on the back of our t-shirts? Great post, thanks David. So what’s your recommendation for the URL on the back of our t-shirts?

]]>