Google Keyword: A New Way to Find
I was watching a commercial for Pontiac the other day, and noticed that instead of giving their domain name (web address) they showed a picture of Google’s page with the word “pontiac” in the search input.
I thought that odd, but it gave me an idea.
Since people have become more accustomed to hearing and using .COM in everyday life, and the rise of internet search giants like google and yahoo, people no longer think they need to use AOL Keywords to get people to their site.
But, there are still those who can’t get their company’s name in a .COM tld. These people either have to rely on people’s memory (exampleonline.com instead of example.com) or the search engines to drive people to their website. But what if those search engines, google and/or yahoo, used their size and influence to offer a AOL keyword-like service to these companies.
For instance, say I own Apple Computers, but unfortunately someone already picked up the apple.com domain name. I can always get applecomputers.com and hope that people either remember the address or find me via google. But what if I could purchase, for a small amount, the Google Keyword: “apple”.
So, when it comes time for me to run a commercial, I would simply say, “Visit us online at AppleComputers.com or Google Keyword: apple”. This way, if they happen to forget the web address, they can always use Google Keyword.
Obviously, this isn’t a new idea, but since the downfall of AOL, and the rise of the internet search giants, there is an open opportunity for google and yahoo to take advantage of the free advertising and traffic. Every time someone heard the commercial of one of their clients, they would essentially get the name of the company mentioned for FREE. Can’t beat that.
I’ve written up an example page that shows the functionality of Google Keyword, and how it could be implemented with very little overhead or real estate on the Google.com homepage. Try it out for yourself. Be sure to use the “Google Keyword” button.
You can use the keywords: digg, diggnation, nathan, slashdot, gmail, apple, firefox, gm, ford.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Also, if you haven’t subscribed to my feed yet, why don’t you do it now? Subscribe Now>
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Nathan,
Companies can currently obtain a domain name (e.g. apple.com) if they already hold the trademark for its name through a judicial appeal, although they won’t always win their case. Most people Google company names anyways, so it really isn’t a big deal if you have apple.com or appleonline.com. And there definitely is no need for businesses to pay for the right for their name to be searchable. That sounds a lot like the plans to end net neutrality, no?
Regards,
Ubuntu (I am because we are)
Indeed they can, if they owned the name before the company who owns the domain. If apple outerwear bought the domain before apple computers, AC is out of luck.
I’m thinking of it from the perspective of companies being able to market both their domain name and their google keyword.
I’s not about paying to be searchable, it’s about paying to have your website immediately available through the biggest search giants in the industry. I think it would benefit both the companies, although perhaps not in a ground breaking manner. It was just a thought that I had as I watched the pontiac commercial.
Thanks for reading and commenting! Hope you become a regular reader!
Company websites are already immediately available through the big search engines. What good would Google and Yahoo be if they weren’t?
~Ubuntu
Not true. It may seem insignificant, but you do save 1 click by using a keyword button instead of a search button.
Google and yahoo would have plenty of value, if you knew neither the domain name nor the keyword.
My point was that it would be an easily addable feature, with little overhead, screen real estate, or effort from either google or the consumer. I’m not claiming it’s revolutionizing, just slightly more convenient (as are many of google’s “upgrades”).