On the other hand, I think GNET is a little of two minds on its branding strategy. How many people, as they use the products, really think of the company as go2net.com, rather than the parent company for each of its great properties: SI, stocksite, metacrawler, playsite, hypermart, etc?
Unlike yahoo, for example, GNET has not so far effectively pursued a portal strategy in which all users think of the property through the prism of the main portal and its name. GNET is more than the sum of its parts, but it is--so far--a segmented property. In the future, as we will see with the integration of IQC, SI and stocksite, integration of the properties will be more of a theme than segmentation, but the portal domain name will not, at least for the short term, be as important as the individual properties.
I don't think litigation will resolve any of this Go, GoTo, Go2Net dispute--Go is such a generic term that it is essentially non-trademarkable. I also don't think this dispute is central to the success of GNET as a stock or as a company. What will matter (especially to all of us GNET stockholders) will be the skill of execution of the company's business plan. Brokers and investors will figure out the difference between GNET--a multifaceted, profitable company--and GOTO--a money-bleeding gimmick. |
