
Pre-branded domain names for startups - ollie
http://stylate.com/
======
wildmXranat
No! A $7.99 domain name and what looks like to me a $99 logo thrown is not a
steal or a good deal. Let me come at this way: Can I get the domain off of you
for %80 off the $250 price ? I presume that the answer is no, because it's a
lipstick on pig product designed to glorify domain squatting.

All the power to you for finding a niche market, but suckers be warned that
it's highway robbery!

edit: downvoted within 2 minutes of posting this without a reply. i guess you
guys were looking for a AAA+++ , would buy again review. what a joke

edit2: Sorry for coming off as harsh, but this sort of domain related shit has
been plaguing the net for a long time

~~~
tptacek
Everybody "domainsquats". People joke with each other about how many names
they have in their registrar account. These particular people chose an
extraordinarily reasonable price point _just for the name_ , and added design
services on top.

They could charge 4x as much and probably close just as much business, because
$1000 is a rounding error for a serious 2-person startup.

I don't see why you're bagging on them.

~~~
phillmv
I think a reasonable argument to make against domain squatting is that those
who do it as a business… are just charging you a fee solely because they
thought of it first. It feels very much like a pure wealth transfer from me to
a more entrenched player.

It's somewhat analogous to say most software patents, in that their sole
purpose seems to be enacting a social cost. You're not going to _do_ anything
with that patent/domain, you're just going to wait until someone else thinks
of it as well.

~~~
tptacek
Why are we entertaining the idea that there's an argument to be had about
domain squatting?

I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s. But
Internet governance did very much the opposite thing. This argument ended a
long time ago. Why piss in the wind about it? In the post-domain-squatting
world, this is a great offering.

~~~
larrys
"I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s."

What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped
domain squatting?

I can't think of a scenario that you could have that would allow someone to
purchase a name but then not allow them to sell the name. So what you would
end up with is names that are registered but have not found their way (through
the free market) to the best possible use.

People tend to think that if the name they wanted wasn't owned by a squatter
who was trying to sell it it would be available when they decided they wanted
to use it. It would just be sitting there and not in the hands of someone else
for a non squatting purpose.

As recently as 2001 I remember attorneys asking if they could use the domain
law.com because "I type it in and nothing comes up". As if nobody thought of
using that in the prior years or something (and this happened with many names
actually).

I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.

~~~
sneak
> What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped
> domain squatting?

I've often thought of this. I think $500/year or $1000/year is an entirely
reasonable price for a .com domain, and would immediately clear out mountains
of cruft. Even $50 or $100/year would get 50-75% of it.

~~~
larrys
True it would certainly cut down significantly on people registering domain
names on speculation.

But it would also prevent many people from getting their own site because of
the cost. I don't think you would have many people taking as many chances as
has happened with the current pricing.

Lowering costs has helped the net even though there are undesirable
consequences as with anything.

~~~
sneak
Sovereign countries would still be able to do whatever they wanted in their
own gTLDs, so I doubt it would actually reduce the number of sites people
have.

Some .ly domain works just as well as a .com, technically.

It would just get rid of all the noise in com/net/org.

------
paulnelligan
I'm not sure I agree that this is such a 'superb idea' ...

As a founder, I want to personalise my domain, and design, and that means
coming up with different concepts, and searching whois until I find a good
match that's available ... The design then has to represent what the product
is about in a non-generic way ... The designs on this site are far too generic
for my taste

I can't imagine myself going to that page with a concept and saying 'AHA,
that's exactly what I wanted' ... Possibly it could in reverse if someone is
looking for inspiration for their next startup ...

~~~
jaysonelliot
When you're at the beginning stages, trying to get something built and
possibly seeking seed money, spending your time naming, designing logos, and
branding is sort of like spending all your money on a nice office before you
have a product.

By all means, do the things you talk about when it's time--but that time is
usually not at the beginning.

------
jmitcheson
I love it. It's like themeforest for startups. Don't listen to the haters.

I have a lot of ideas I put on the backburner 'cause I'm busy with other
things. The value in this isn't just the domain, it's the "packaging" of the
entire first part of the process. I do this on themeforest too.. browse
landing pages for one startup, but maybe buy a landing page that happens to be
suited to another random startup idea, if I saw it.

Good luck to you, sirs / madams.

~~~
marcelvdg
Totally agree - I actually just lucked out and found a simple temp name for a
startup I'm working on. Trying to find a name has been a pain, and now its
sorted in 2 minutes. I won't use the branding, but FINALLY we have a domain.

I'm sure they'll be sold out by the end of the day.

------
hsuresh
You should seriously consider reserving handles on twitter and other services
and providing it to the user of your service, else a squatter can easily
register handles on these services for the domains you list on your website.

I am not too comfortable with this service though, i don't like the thought of
you squatting away hundreds of good startup names. Partly because the price
point of $250 sounds very expensive to me, at least as someone sitting in
India.

~~~
Elepsis
Totally agree that they should be reserving handles on the major services. In
addition, it doesn't look like they've registered the .net and .org versions
of the domains, which also seems like a no-brainer.

------
tomblomfield
I despise the blatant profiteering of domainers - they're sucking value out of
a system that in some sense should "belong" to society, and providing nothing
in return.

But these prices aren't completely unreasonable, they come with (generally
quite decent) logos, and they would save a startup countless hours of faffing
over domains.

------
jasonkester
This is domain squatting pure and simple. Just because it's dressed up with a
pretty design doesn't change the fact that these guys are the exact sort of
bottom feeders that we should be blackballing from our industry.

Flagged.

~~~
shabda
1\. Not using copyrighted names.

2\. Adding value

3\. Not using means such as using expiring names

4\. Not using "bottom feeder" tactics like parking page advertising.

From wikipedia: cybersquatting:

" or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of
a trademark belonging to someone else"

What goodwill or trademark are they misusing?

[Edit: For formatting, but couldn't get it to look like I want.]

~~~
CognitiveLens
It appears that they are using parking page advertising - go to any of the
available domains and you'll see that they don't just redirect to Stylate.

~~~
mmahemoff
Point is it's not their primary profit model. In fact, they'll make next to
nothing on parking ads for these domains, being made-up names...unless their
customers promote the domain before actually executing the transfer (which
would not be a smart thing to do).

~~~
stylate
Not pointing the domains was an oversight. We will fix this soon.

------
garethsprice
The amount of controversy here means that you must be on to something.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is that you show your idea to someone
and they're totally indifferent.

That some people love this and others hate it, and that you've generated
hundreds of comments, shows that this is worth pursuing.

Bookmarked for next time I get stuck thinking of names. My usual process is to
think of an idea I think is great, spend 2-3 days thinking of names, set up a
domain and landing page. Saving that 2-3 days for $250 is something I'd
seriously consider.

Often these ideas are impulses that consume me for a week or two, then I get
bored of them or find someone else who's already doing a great job of filling
the need.

I would experiment with pricing - at $250 it's not an impulse buy. It is a
fantastic price for someone who is seriously starting a company, but I have a
hunch that people like me (who have a day job but regularly come up with ideas
they love and obsess over for a week or two, that then fizzles out to nothing)
is a larger market and has potential for repeat purchases. If you can tap into
that you may find more revenue, cashing in on the empty dreams of dilettantes
like me :)

------
ta3892682334
I like the concept but I'm not a fan of the domains you have now. Can I
suggest you open it up to consignment for anyone with a domain? So you
increase the value of my domain mydomain.com by giving it a brand / landing
page and for that I agree to give you $250 or some percentage of the sale.

~~~
pseudonimble
Wouldn't that just be a straight up design/branding firm?

It is far easier to pick a random name and match it with some random generic
branding, than to be given MySpecificProduct.com and build a brand around
that. Branding companies charge a lot of money because it (generally) takes a
lot of time, effort and expertise to build good brands.

There is also the fact that it would become a designer-client relationship
than a merchant-customer one. Clients get to dictate what they want (to a
certain extent), customers see what they are getting before they buy. What if
they built a brand around MySpecificProduct.com and you didn't like it?

------
e1ven
This is a really great idea. One of the things which young startups often
spend too much time on is picking a perfect name + brand. This is a great way
to get started.

You can always iterate later if necessary, but this gives you something to use
NOW, and put the discussion away and get back to real work.

Also, I love the layout. Very straightforward. I currently subscribe to the
<http://justdropped.com/> mailing list which has daily domain names that he
buys as they expire.. I could see something similar for your site, but with
logos attached.

Also, a NewsLetter would be a great way for me to keep up with the (weekly?)
new designs you add to the store.

Keep it up!

~~~
dotty
Great idea for them, yes. For us? Awful. Most of the time I bet the logos
(which are ok but a bit generic) won't match what you have in mind for your
site. These people are no better than domain squatters - they're an
unnecessary tax on startups. A number of times now I've abandoned ideas after
being unable to find a domain name as they're all taken by squatters, it's
saddening :(

~~~
ljf
From all the possible names and extensions that are available, you've been
unable to find anything that fits? And it was the lack of suitable URL that
led you to abandon these ideas?

A URL alone does not makes a site or a success.

------
dmnd
The moravo logo[1] is a blatant copy of the Aperture Science logo[2] with a
couple of segments coloured Portal orange and blue.

[1]: <http://stylate.com/portfolio/moravo-com/>

[2]: <http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Aperture_Science>

~~~
yock
And Picasa: <http://picasa.google.com/>

------
mechanical_fish
This would presumably make a great party game for YC meetups. You deal out a
card with the logo on it and then everyone in the circle has to describe what
they think the company or product is.

I'm trying to figure out what "TweetBump" is. The obvious answer is: It's
Twitter, plus Bump. You wander around a party bumping phones with folks, and
every time you do that both of you automatically Tweet "I bumped into [X] at
[Awesome Location Y]".

(No obvious business model, though. ;)

(And I'm not a Bump user, so I wouldn't exactly be surprised to learn that the
app has already supported this for years. ;)

------
heyadayo
I like this a lot.

Sometimes you can spend 3-20 hours trying to figure out a name, domain, and
branding. I'd pay a couple hundred bucks to skip that step. I wish this
existed all those previous times I was stuck grinding on names!

~~~
ljf
There is no name here that suited what we were looking for, but it has the
potential to save you loads of time, plus the logo costs.

If I was starting out something new I'd def check here, and use this as a
starting point, use the logo to start a basic site, get a letter head made and
some business cards done - bang, hours save, cost of a decent logo save,
headaches saved.

Plus, you can change your name when ever you like - people get so overly
stressed about names, as though the .com is the most important thing.

------
phsr
Instead of leaving the godaddy parked page, maybe you should put the logo on
the page, with a "This domain is for sale at stylate.com" link

~~~
ljf
Quite shocked they haven't - with a little strapline for each.

------
todsul
My goodness! A startup with a purpose, a product, an interesting business
model... and no ads. Is this a freakin' mirage?

Love the fixed $250 price.

Great work guys.

------
chrisconley
It's a bit more expensive but there's also <http://brandbucket.com>.

~~~
sunir
Also excellent (I would claim more excellent) is <http://brandstack.com/>

~~~
zippykid
I agree. I bought ZippyKid.com from Brandstack last year. I would never have
thought of it myself, even though all my initial customers had said how fast I
was in responding to emails, and how much faster their sites were after they
switched to me.

------
spc476
I picked one domain, parabis.com and typed that domain name into the address
bar of my browser. It is for sale, but the asking price is $2,000. Odd that
it's going for $250 at stylate.com.

~~~
sbisker
Good old fashioned price discrimination? Why not try to sell a domain name to
a struggling startup for $250 and the same domain name to a random BigCo for
$2,000?

------
Hrundi
There are some lovely domains in here. Very cheap in comparison to their
worth! It sucks that when this post becomes more popular, most of them (if not
all) will be taken.

Serves me right for having worked almost 4 years for a very large mobile games
developer here in Argentina and having seen 40% of my paycheck being eaten
away by inflation in the last few years.

I simply can't afford these domains, I would have loved to have them turned
into full blown sites, just for fun!

Congratulations to the people that purchase them... please treat them nice :)

------
awolf
I misread the price when I looked the first time. I thought it said $2,500. I
didn't bat an eye.

$250 it too cheap.

------
yuvadam
Most of these domains are names of types you can easily find using tools like
nametoolkit, and purchase for $10.

Nonetheless, this is a superb idea, which can become easily profitable.

------
acabal
Looks like a great idea, very clever, but I'm not sure about the pricing. I
would love to use something like this as a small developer, but $250 is a bit
much for a domain and a logo given my small-time budget. On the other hand,
companies with a larger budget would probably just have something like this
done in-house. So I guess I'd ask: who do you see being the target market
here?

~~~
stylate
We are testing different price points. What would you feel comfortable paying?

~~~
dotty
How about £10? You know.. how much you're __supposed __to pay for a domain.

~~~
Isofarro
In hind-sight everything is obvious. Everything is easy if you already know
it. You already know the perfect domain for your uses that's already available
- more power to you.

The interesting aspect of this service is as a set of triggers. You'll find
some people will immediately spot a matching domain in that list - they may
not have thought of it themselves, but seeing it there triggers off the
lightbulb.

Sure you can do the exact same thing with a command line whois, but then you
don't get the benefit of serendipity. Someone else's list of brandable domains
shows an item you weren't expecting to see, and that triggers off your own
creative process into a different direction, and you find an end result you
may not have arrived at without that serendipitous discovery.

You are seeing the results of someone else's creative process of discovering
brandable domains. You don't have to pay for that effort, but you can be
motivated by it. The $250 charge is if one of those domains is a perfect
match, not for the process of finding an available perfect match and brandable
domain.

The route that satisfies your expenditure expectations is watching expired
domains lists - that's another source of someone else's creative inspiration.
But you either have to scan tens of thousands of junk entries, or have a
keyword list of some sort to focus on. Even then, because of the volume,
you'll miss excellent domain names that are slightly outside of your current
thread of ideas.

Then there's <http://impossibility.org/> \- generating available domains
centred around a keyword. It's interesting, more serendipitous than expired
lists, and purchasable immediately by registration. This is probably one of
the better "suggested domain name" tools around, though it's just sticking
words before or after your keyword. Sometimes an good domains does pop out,
but it takes a bit of a graft, or a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Or sit there typing one domain idea at a time into a whois. It depends on your
own level of innate creativity as to which approach will reap dividends.
Personally, I use several different avenues. This is one more to keep an eye
on.

Don't underestimate the creativity and inspiration. This is perhaps a better
source of quality domains than Sedo/GoDaddy auctions,
ebay/flippa/digitalpoint. Better, because of it's focus on brandable names
rather than generic keywords / keyword-heavy / geo-targetted domains that are
the current vogue in domainer/internet marketing circles.

These guys won't know what matches perfectly for you, only you do. If the
price upsets you, you are not forced to buy even if it's a perfect match, you
can just find another perfectly matching domain that is available.

------
kunley
That's a symptom that startups possibly became a new fashion.

Now the following is a bit offtopic, but the thoughts are what I have in mind
for quite a time.

Look how many startups are there around whose only purpose is to connect or
extract information from other startups whose again are build on the top some
previous startups. Where is a stop for this? Where's the creativity? Where's
the thinking of making things that people _really_ need?

This looks like a rant but please think of it analytically:

1\. People start to use product A because it fills some temporary niche.

2\. The conditions of the niche vanish, but the product is still used, the
user base grows because of inertia, marketing, whatever.

3\. As the initial conditions dissolved the product A isn't exactly what
people need at the moment, so there emerge products B & C built on the top of
A with even more fragile conditions: only to support momentary lack of desired
features in A.

Any similarity with existing startup scene?

Well, what if all these products were build based on some more _unconditional_
needs of the users in the first place?

~~~
garethsprice
"Where's the creativity? Where's the thinking of making things that people
really need?"

Startup owners are people that need things too - often really good customers
to work with as they understand the time involved in building a product and
will pay for services that save them time/money.

If anything, startups selling to startups is fantastic news as:

1\. It's creating an ecosystem of small, independently owned businesses - a
vibrant self-contained economy.

2\. Good marketing is selecting a niche that is small enough to compete in but
large enough to build a profitable business. It validates that startups are a
successful enough business model that there's enough people in that community
to constitute a profitable niche market.

3\. It doesn't matter if the need is not permanent - all customer needs are
transient given a long enough timeframe. If I have a problem I'll pay to solve
then I'm not thinking about whether I'll have the same problem in 10 years,
just that I want it solved right now.

------
manuscreationis
I'm so-so on this concept.

I'm sure it'll be a reasonable success and generate you some cash, but on the
other hand, seeing someone holding a creative grab bag of interesting domains
and concepts that they're only hoping to flip for a profit makes me uneasy.

There are a lot of clever, interesting names here though, and I can definitely
see someone who has a concept without a a title seeing a lot of value in
paying $250 for something like this. It's more than likely a hell of a lot
cheaper than most domain squatters (which isn't exactly what i'd call this)
would charge for the domain alone.

My major fear - the owner of this content might find someone who uses a
similar name as one of their concepts-for-sale, and attempt to sue them
without being able to properly verify if said person actually ripped them off,
or just themselves came up with the idea coincidentally. It's one of those
slippery slope endeavors.

I'm torn over whether I like "Feastable", "WhamBox", or "PixelKeg" the most.
Definitely some great names here.

------
MattBearman
I'm just impressed to see a decent sounding, 5 letter .com domain for $250
(Vueta) - tempted to snap that one up myself.

~~~
ljf
Plenty of great short domains on other extensions - I got whi.im and om.gd for
a couple of projects I am working on. Issue is whether the people who need to
know, know that .im or .gd are domain extension - or if it will just confuse
them and send them to whiim.com (which we don't own).

------
andrewcross
Yes, you are paying a premium. Yes, they are making a profit on this. But hey,
they are solving a pain point, why not charge?

I just paid $1650 for a domain. That was a ton of money for me, but when
someone already has it, you don't have a lot of leverage.

If I was starting another company, I would use this in a second. fueza.com
anyone?

------
arkitaip
This could be an interesting tool - along with Unbouce, LaunchRock or
KickoffLabs - when doing MVP web sites.

------
yannick
This is quite a good idea, and the site itself is very nice and easy to
navigate. Congratulations.

Seeing a domain name with an MVL (Minimum Viable Logo, haha) is really much
better for imagining how strong it could be than just seeing it listed in
text.

However, I found the selection too limited. So I think an interesting model
for you would become a marketplace: 1- invite squatters with domains to sell
to post their names on your site 2- invite designers to freely create logos to
un-logoed domains 3- sell this wider selection to your audience, sharing the
revenue with both squatters and designers.

Good luck - with more selection, I would easily find the service worthwhile at
that price point.

------
Finbarr
I think this is really good for people in certain situations, e.g., you're
going to pitch an important event with a new idea and you don't have a name or
a logo. The design is nice and clean. My only suggestion would be adding share
buttons.

------
joeyespo
Until these pre-branded domains are actually bought and used, it seems like
such a waste. There have been so many domains I would have loved to purchase
that are blocked by some "value-adding" gimmick.

At first, it's interesting. But think about it. Pre-purchasing domains
throwing a brand on top is really as bad as implementing a software/web
application without doing any market research. Chances are it's really not
what people want. Unlike dead software/web apps, however, these domain names
become worse than useless by block others from making something great.

------
lionhearted
I think this is cool, and if I saw one that suited a project I was doing, I'd
drop $250 for it no problem. You can't please everyone, but some people will
think this is cool, and that's all you need.

------
sweeper33
I like this idea. I think for smaller companies that can't afford a graphic
design artist and a whole kit for their company, this is an attractive, fairly
inexpensive option. It also has a kick start element to it. At the beginning
lots of companies spend time and effort on their branding when they should be
concentrating on their product, marketing and growth. Pre-branded domains give
them a starting point to jump off from and is a timesaver.

------
grannyg00se
These are not branded domain names. They are brandable domain names with a
sample logo. A logo is not a brand.

The title here is misleading but the site does a good job explaining what they
are offering. And I think that they are providing good value. When you are
starting out the last thing you need to do is waste a lot of time and money on
a name and logo. With this service, you just pick one and forget about it then
move onto more important matters.

------
fybren
There's definitely a market for this, and it saddens me.

Choosing a name is supposed to be difficult. You're supposed to brainstorm for
hours, bounce ideas off your friends and second guess yourself. Having to go
through this pain to get to the right name adds character to the business
through authenticity.

Choosing a name from a list of pre-created brands, clever or not, is a cop
out.

Best of luck, though. I'm sure you'll do well.

------
par
I think it's a very genuine idea. I don't think your intention is to squat on
domains, I think it is to help people with the non-trivial process of finding
names and logos. If nothing else, yours is just a great place for people to
get ideas of their own. $250 is very reasonable.

------
wallawe
Just in case someone wants one of your names but doesn't know of your site, it
would be a great idea to have some quick info (link and price) under the 'get
info' section of domain registrars like godaddy (since thats where the
majority of people will be looking).

------
missy
The names of the domains are more creative then the logos.Most names sound
like a mid size start up website but the logos very high quality clipart.

I think they should create a tool that does this name and custom logo creation
then doing it themselves. Dont see how they sell much

------
Tichy
The vuaro logo is amusing. Nothing communicates usability and ease of mind as
well as a labyrinth :-)

Other than that I am not that impressed, the logos look pretty
generic/standard. Maybe that kind of thing could work for small businesses
(like restaurants), though.

------
csomar
I don't think it's good for startups. A startup is something that you spend
time on, launch, test, connect... It needs more than a $250 logo, but a
complete strategy for launching.

But what about small web apps? This should work very well for them.

------
Maro
If a hypothetical person (not a HN user) thinks of a domain name and find that
these guys are squatting it, is not interested in the design, he'll be
thinking they're domain squatting assholes. He'll be right.

------
LogoBids
A lot of people are talking about domain squatting.

I own LunchMeet.com and paid 5 figures for it when at the time I intended to
develop a startup.

Now I want to sell it. Is it squatting if I am just trying to get my money
back?

------
idoh
They should make sure to grab the twitter user name too, that's an important
part of branding. I noticed that some of the twitter user names for the brands
are free - how long will that last?

------
lpolovets
This is a terrific idea.

Feature request: I'd love to subscribe to categories and get updates when you
add new domains. E.g. "Please email me when you have a new domain related to
health or hardware."

------
yahelc
It looks like someone might have already nabbed unhacker.com:
<http://stylate.com/portfolio/unhacker-com/>

------
amouat
Clever. Do you scale the prices with number of clicks?

~~~
tptacek
It's flat pricing.

~~~
amouat
Seems it does state on the sidebar that all domains are the same price.

I guess some people may see it as exploitative, but I would consider
increasing the price of domains that a lot of people have clicked on and
reducing the price of others.

------
jorkos
This is an okay option but there are other ways to get good cheap domains. The
main problem with these domains is that they have no history.

------
joshuahays
I'll visit the site if not to buy a logo, but a great place to start when
thinking about a name for a startup. Good food for thought.

------
n8agrin
I think this is great, if only because it shows you don't need to name your
startup something that ends in -li, -ly, and -r.

------
chaz
Would love to see the Twitter name included as well. That's a must-have for
some businesses. Otherwise, very nice site.

~~~
icebraining
That's against the Twitter's ToS, under "username squatting" rules:
<http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules>

------
hartror
Is anyone else looking at the names/logos and coming up with business ideas to
fit? This is great!

------
ereckers
Quick question: why tags with no listings? ie. Health and Jobs. Did you create
the tag list first?

~~~
stylate
Some of the domains have sold out so we had blank categories. We will be
releasing a new bunch in the next 24 hours.

------
j45
Cool idea. Sometimes you would be willing to pay $250 to just get started.

If you have free time, do it yourself.

------
Skyhoper
Had a similar idea with startup branding in a box.

Currently not using HeyBTW with Heybtw.com, heyb.tw, @heybtw

------
jasonli
Curious, how many domain names did you sell since posting on HN? (If you dont
mind answering)

------
robjohnson
This epitomizes what packaging and convenience to provide to a simple concept.
Bravo!

~~~
stylate
Thanks!

------
stylate
Hey if you are looking for updates on Stylate.com, we just put up a twitter
account--->

@stylater

------
ck2
Risky business model since they aren't generic now.

Though a reverse hijacking costs more than $250

------
rottendoubt
I think it's a great idea. They need way more domain names though (100x).

~~~
stylate
Coming soon (like in the next 24 hours)

------
shimsham
unfortunately a logo and 2-syllable odd-sounding name don't make a brand.
however, as a cost-effective way to get a name and image, it's relatively
pragmatic, especially for those who need it NOW.

~~~
stylate
We are trying to add to the lean startup ecosystem, not replace $xx,xxx
keyword domains that venture-backed startups can afford.

~~~
shimsham
lean startup ecosystem = not paying for things you don't need. plain language
wins over every time. if a new business with little money needs a name and a
logo for a fixed price, this can make economic sense. branding considers the
audience and not the founders.

------
soyelmango
Domain speculators selling at a fixed 'low' price.

------
jefft
To me, this is idea is akin to having a 3rd year creative writing student
write a love poem for your bride-to-be.

Nicely designed site, though. Looks great.

~~~
brohee
Dunno how to interpret that. Surely the love poem would come out better than
if I wrote it...

As I see it you get a working logo matched with a domain you like, even if
it's not your final visual identity it's at least a start.

------
davidtyleryork
Genius

------
pitdesi
Count me in the group that finds $250 to be a steal for this sort of thing.
Your mission page is spot on.

The amount of time/headache it takes to brand a startup should not be
underestimated. I think that the logos are fine to get started quickly but
probably would all need to be changed in the long run, but no big deal, you've
provided a decent enough starting point where it doesn't look shitty atleast
and can allow someone to build their product while still having a decent
looking thing on their site.

We spent several WEEKS of all hands on deck and lots of $$$ (Well over $10k
for the domain name, banners, stationery etc) as a company rebranding from
Transparent Financial Services (<http://transfs.com>) to FeeFighters
(<http://feefighters.com>). Had we started with something better than transfs
from the beginning we wouldn't have had the problem (btw, it's still a pain in
the ass because google apps doesn't let you change your name, so we still only
have a duct tape solution where our google apps are still @transfs and I
occasionally still send an email from @transfs - embarassing!). Plus, we lost
all the google juice we'd built up over that time (which was considerable -
TransFS was a PageRank 5 site and FeeFighters had none).

At that point (post-funding), our time and pagerank were a lot more important
than the money.

More on our rebrand that might be useful to people (you now have to pay to see
the video but can download the audio and read transcript for free):
<http://mixergy.com/sean-harper-feefighters-intervie/>

~~~
gacba
Agreed. The time and money you can waste doing domain search and logo design
far exceeds the $250 price they're charging. Having done this a number of
times myself, $250 is a major bargain for something that is vetted and pretty
much ready-to-promote.

Looking through the brands, nothing really fits any of my current projects but
I would definitely consider coming back to check again and again.

~~~
handelaar
I'm all over your point but _strictly_ only in theory.

These logos are for the most part gobsmackingly awful. I'm genuinely surprised
that there's no Comic Sans among them. Robogenerating words with free fonts
you dug up on some website is _not the same thing_ as a 'Design Service'.

[http://stylate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/burntfood_smal...](http://stylate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/burntfood_small.png)

[http://stylate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/usante_small.p...](http://stylate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/usante_small.png)

 _REALLY?_ Those are worth more than a cold cup of coffee?

I thought it sounded like a great idea from the link title, and I'd have no
issue with the price if there was any actual value in the value-add.

------
ahoyhere
FYI: Brandstack.com has better logos. Speaking as a designer & a person who's
hired logo designers, as well as somebody who bought a logotype off
Brandstack.com. I didn't use the name/identity but used it for my next SaaS,
Charm.

That said - most people put too much weight on a name, but it's really
important to be sure the name is A) memorable (this doesn't mean weird or
unique), B) easy to spell and C) easy to Google.

Names that are weird spellings or made-up words are NOT memorable, basically
because they don't fit into a ready-made slot in the readers' head. (Plus if
they are hard to spell, you're SOL.)

It's far better to have a memorable name like "Charm" and then append crap to
the end of the domain (e.g. CharmHQ.com) to ensure you can grab the domain,
than it is to have a short, unique name where you get the regular name.com.

This conclusion is based on my extensive reading of cogsci research about
memory, word association, etc.

------
ShawnJG
while I am sure that someone out there can use the service, taking the time to
come up with your own name and design should not be given up lightly. I do
take issue with the "branding" implication that these domains purportedly
have. Before starting my own company I spent years in an ad agency, and I can
tell you that unless there is an unusual amount of serendipity involved you
probably won't find a name and image that fits perfectly with your company
goals and vision. A brand is a promise to the public which conveys your intent
your services and your commitment to your product. Coca-Cola, McDonald's,
Disney all do this very well for example. If you're not a designer I can see
gaining design inspiration from this site. But in my opinion, take a little
time try to come up with your own ideas to implement.

~~~
ljf
I agree in some ways - but sometimes names can delay launches. I can see a
small start up using this site to 'just get out there' - and worry about
branding later.

Depending on what you are doing you can change your name/brand later.

Since /most/ start-ups fail, why not get to market quicker, with less cost,
and less time/brain power wasted.

~~~
ShawnJG
Everything in balance. You definitely should not delay the launch of a product
because you can't think of a name. But getting to market and changing your
name/brand later defeats the whole purpose of branding. In fact it's the
opposite of branding. For the latest example just think about Netflix and what
they did by naming their DVD mailing service qwixster. That name change is
arguably a colossally bad move. I'm not saying your design has to be perfect,
you can always update the image like Howard Johnson did for their motel chain.
I tend to think that small businesses make a huge mistake when they gloss over
the branding/marketing work. I am not advocating the necessity of bringing in
a huge ad agency and market research just to get a logo. Just put in a little
effort, use the same ingenuity you use when you started your company and come
up with a brand identity that ties into what you do. At the very least you can
go to logo tournament and get a custom built logo starting at 250. It's the
same amount as this service plus you have are reasonably high degree of
customization. Your name and your logo will be the most visible part of your
company. You want it to instantly signify all the best traits and qualities
you have, even if it is just subliminally. Some of the best brands out there
who do this well, can just with their logo conjure up a long list of
attributes/adjectives in a potential consumer's mind. A super simple one is
Rolex… It's just their name with a crown over it. Even if you did not know
that they were a watchmaker, by looking at their logo you would assume that
whatever they do it's of high quality befitting of royalty or at least made
the connection with royalty in your mind. I just think there are many more
options that for the same amount of money and minimal effort you can put
together something that is closely related and much more beneficial than an
off the rack name and logo solution.

------
dotty
Ugh! These are just glorified domain sitters disguised as a trendy start-up.
Please don't give these people your money - they ruin innovation by taking up
massive amounts of domains then selling them for huge amounts. These people
RUIN the internet.

~~~
stylate
Very rarely will you find a domainer selling a .COM for less than $1000. If
anything we are forcing down the price floor. Right?

~~~
profitbaron
I know a lot of domainers (who own thousands of domain names) and all of them
will sell a .COM for less than $1000, just because its a .COM doesn't mean its
instantly worth at least $1000.

That's not to say they won't sell some domains for more than $1000 because,
they own premium domains, as well as LLL.com's NNN.com's etc but your
generalisation that a .COM is worth $1000 is wrong.

------
its_so_on
Now all we need is a place where you can put brandless but fully implemented
tech solutions. e.g. "sms to e-mail technology".

That brings us to the final piece of the puzzle: a site where you can invest
in a "team" that has no idea and no technology.

Then the guys who walk around with bags of money evaluating teams and business
propositions will finally be able to just mix and match to whatever they want,
thinking (as they already do) that they're the ones adding all the value.
Which, to be fair, under capitalism they probably do.

------
profitbaron
I tried 5 of your domains and they all point to Godaddy parked pages. You
should really place a lander on them - which shows the logo and either a link
to purchase the domain or a contact form to get in touch. Personally, I would
add something like [http://themeforest.net/item/hanbai-multilanguage-domain-
for-...](http://themeforest.net/item/hanbai-multilanguage-domain-for-
sale/151728) which only costs $5 but even a logo and a link would be better
than a Godaddy parked page which your domains currently have.

------
wavephorm
Now combine this with some programmably generated content with a landing page,
just change out variables like "social", "local", "recommendations", and
"analytics". And then fire off auto-generated submissions to Y-Combinator,
TechStars, and a slide deck to Sequoia.

You could condense the entire Silicon Valley startup funding scene into a
single transaction.

------
klbarry
Needs more choices :)

------
dramaticus3
WineCoffer sounds like Wank Offer

