In a recent entry about the increasing value of site names I quoted Goldberger, an insider in the business, as saying, “Dot com is king. Dot net is worthless.” Where does this leave dot org? One company TIAA-CREF which offers financial services to people employed in professions such as teaching and health care believes that their dot org status could be beneficial. The New York Times article on the new advertising campaign pointed out that it came at just the right time. One print add asks, “Ever heard of a .org crash?” which with the current state of the market could prove to very a very comforting idea to the target audience.

This a step in the right direction. Previous campaigns have torn at the heart strings (I admit to even tearing up a few times). Recall the montage of hard working professors and doctors followed by some phrase like “For all the extra hours you dedicate to your students, we think you deserve extra credit”. Though these campaigns were flattering to the ego they did not necessarily flatter the target audience’s intelligence as consumers. To flaunt the dot org will presumably give a sense of security to the younger generations (Modernista which is handling the campaign is targeting people still in the prime of their careers). These younger people are the ones more apt to look at the site “suffix” and may like the feeling of putting their money into the hands of a nonprofit organization.

Is this something new that can be expected of others? Can pushing a site’s name (specifically .org/.com/…even .net) create a positive feeling in consumers?