Keyword age
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/jobs-may-make-mat-lose-his-job-20091125-jq6t.html
A smallish Sydney software company that sells an iPod-related tool, that was until recently called iPodRip, was sent a C&D by Apple requiring them to drop the use of the term 'iPod' in their branding. They conceded the point and changed the name of the product to iRip.
There's a fair bit of kerfuffle in the article above about how (supposedly) unfair it is for Apple to hound them like this after they've had the tool on the market for six years. Actually it seems like a fairly open and shut case of trademark violation to me, and a choice of product name about as risky as starting to sell red reusable plastic drink bottles called 'Cokers' or something.
What occured to me reading it was that by getting some publicity for the iPodRip to iRip name change in a couple of highly visible web locations like the SMH website, the company's owner has ensured that people who Google iPodRip looking for the product under its old name won't have too much trouble finding out that the name has been changed to iRip.
So the problem he states:"... we've just lost all the hard work that we've done with Google keywords and our customers no longer know where to find us"
may never materialise.
If he orchestrated the Fairfax coverage it's all quite clever really, and it means that if Apple is trying to shut the product out of the market they'll have some difficulty.
So long as you can get the product name transition on the same website as a few of the top related Google hits you're probably fine when you have to move search keyword.
It would be fascinating to see someone work out where the money flows from each keyword in the string space. A chart of cash moving in response to specific keyword searches.
A smallish Sydney software company that sells an iPod-related tool, that was until recently called iPodRip, was sent a C&D by Apple requiring them to drop the use of the term 'iPod' in their branding. They conceded the point and changed the name of the product to iRip.
There's a fair bit of kerfuffle in the article above about how (supposedly) unfair it is for Apple to hound them like this after they've had the tool on the market for six years. Actually it seems like a fairly open and shut case of trademark violation to me, and a choice of product name about as risky as starting to sell red reusable plastic drink bottles called 'Cokers' or something.
What occured to me reading it was that by getting some publicity for the iPodRip to iRip name change in a couple of highly visible web locations like the SMH website, the company's owner has ensured that people who Google iPodRip looking for the product under its old name won't have too much trouble finding out that the name has been changed to iRip.
So the problem he states:"... we've just lost all the hard work that we've done with Google keywords and our customers no longer know where to find us"
may never materialise.
If he orchestrated the Fairfax coverage it's all quite clever really, and it means that if Apple is trying to shut the product out of the market they'll have some difficulty.
So long as you can get the product name transition on the same website as a few of the top related Google hits you're probably fine when you have to move search keyword.
It would be fascinating to see someone work out where the money flows from each keyword in the string space. A chart of cash moving in response to specific keyword searches.