When we work on a brand naming project, beyond originality (see article) the conversation inevitably turns to domain availability. Everyone still asks for a .com.
Ironically, .com, is still “hyped”.
Let’s take a brief look back in time – to the investment euphoria of the 1990s, peaking around 1999–2000, shortly after the birth of the internet, when startups with a .com suffix were massively overvalued in financial markets.
Investors were pouring money into any company with even a vaguely digital idea. There was global excitement around the potential of the internet! Companies didn’t even need to be profitable, all they needed was a “digital” concept and a com domain.
.com com became a symbol of credibility. If you had a name like “something.com,” you were seen as serious, tech-savvy, and future-facing.
You could receive millions in funding just for having “.com” in your product name.
A mythology formed around digital innovation and .com, yet many of those companies had no final product, no business model, and no real revenue.
.., and in 2000, the bubble burst. The stock prices of .com companies collapsed, and thousands of startups went bankrupt.
Still, .com remains a must-have for many clients today.
The illusion of credibility – A catchy name and a website don’t mean you have a real brand. It’s form without substance.
The myth of innovation – Just because something promises “the future” doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in.
Irrational exuberance – An economic concept that explains how people can massively overvalue trends without solid foundation.
The cycle of hype and correction – Just like AI seems to be taking over everything today, the internet once seemed to conquer the world overnight. But then… reality hits.
And let’s not forget Pets.com. The textbook case of irrational enthusiasm, branding without foundation, and how a beautiful story can collapse without strategy or business grounding.
In 1998, in the midst of the internet explosion, Pets.com launched as an online store for pet products. It sounded perfect: emotion, community, digital transformation, rapid growth.
They had all the visual ingredients of a successful brand:
Aveau toate ingredientele vizuale ale unui brand de succes:
- a friendly dog-paw logo
- a charming sock puppet mascot that went viral (before “viral” was even a thing)
- a Super Bowl ad (!)
- and of course, a short, memorable .com domain, the badge of seriousness in those times.
On the surface, the brand looked impeccable. Emotional, playful, recognizable.
But they sold pet food at a loss – often cheaper than it cost to deliver. There was no logistics infrastructure to handle heavy deliveries (15 kg bags shipped at minimal cost).
The marketing was flawless.
The strategy was nonexistent.
In less than two years, Pets.com burned through $300 million and went bankrupt.
Today, it’s a classic case study.
A symbol of branding that promises more than it can deliver.
A reminder that:
- branding without market validation doesn’t hold
- visual identity can’t compensate for a broken model
- .com and visibility won’t save a concept with no real value
Today, we’re seeing a new wave of Pets.com-style brands:
AI-slick, launched fast, expensive domains, flawless aesthetics.
But if you look closer, there’s often a lack of direction, value, and human intention.
Real creativity takes time, strategy, and responsibility.
Enduring branding isn’t a mask – it’s a living process.
With meaning.
And here at Armeanu Creative Studio, we like to keep it real.
__
Autor: Ana Armeanu, Mai 2025
Resurse:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dotcom-bubble.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/dotcom-pets-dot-com.asp