henrypartel — 2011-04-08T16:34:08-04:00 — #1
I am developing a few large websites that will all be under one corporation. Some related, some not related. What would I label this corporation as?
I also want start a website that provides internet marketing, seo, etc and run it under the same corporation.
ralphm — 2011-04-08T21:10:12-04:00 — #2
What do you mean by 'labeling the corporation'? Presumably it has a name? Normally I'd say a corporation is defined by what kind of product it sells or perhaps how big it is (e.g. 'multi-national'), rather than by how many websites it has. Maybe provide more details about what you are asking.
git_solutions — 2011-04-09T03:09:06-04:00 — #3
It will be LTD Or PVT LTD and depends on What kinde of product it sell. and i think for naming the company there is some law.
sagewing — 2011-04-09T15:13:09-04:00 — #4
The name of a corporation has little to do with whether it owns multiple websites. There are some simple rules about the use of things like LLC, Corp, etc. and trademark considerations in the US but otherwise you name it however you like.
henrypartel — 2011-04-12T14:49:55-04:00 — #5
Sorry, I don't mean what the name of the corporation could be. I have the name already filed as an S corporation. But I am looking for some insight on how I can basically market this corporation with all the businesses it runs underneath it. For example, an e-solution company, or a company that creates internet solutions, etc.
sagewing — 2011-04-12T14:53:44-04:00 — #6
There is no such thing as filing as an 's corporation'. That is probably just a regular corporation that is filing taxes as an s-corp. That means it's just a corp.
But your marketing question is hard to understand. What does the company DO? If it's just holding websites, it doesn't need marketing. If it's an e-solution company, what are the solutions?
How do you define the company?
henrypartel — 2011-04-12T15:02:18-04:00 — #7
That's what I am wondering. We are in development with a few websites that we will be running. These websites will all be owned under that one corporation. We also have plans for future websites as well. So basically what this company does is create niche websites and run them.
But for example, when press releases show that "x.com" is owned by "x Inc" what exactly is "X Inc" when someone looks it up?
Do we just label this company as a holding company for these websites it owns?
I want to create a simple website for "X Inc" to show who we are and what we do so I am just looking to see what I can label the company as.
sagewing — 2011-04-12T15:44:51-04:00 — #8
You just said it right there.
votrechien1 — 2011-04-13T20:41:13-04:00 — #9
This is a common dilemma- how do you maintain a consistent brand image across multiple websites?
First, this is an issue even for even larger companies, even before the age of the internet. For example, companies like Neutrogena would sell things like Lipstick, Shampoo, Deodorant, you name it. Their solution seems to be to simply put "Lucky Lipstick, by Neutrogena".
The most common internet retailer in this situation is probably hayneedle.com (revenues $300m +) who run 200+ niche websites. As you can see, the name of the site almost seems to be an afterthought with them. Everything is branded as Hayneelde first and the name of the website secondary.
So with that being said, a couple of things to keep in mind IMO. First, your corporate name doesn't necessarily have to reflect your brand. KFC is part of Yum Foods. It can simply be your legal name. But for smaller companies, it's probably easiest if the Corporate name is your brand name as well. Just don't make that legal name limiting...don't call yourself "Joe's Bicycle Wheels Inc." if you think you might sell car wheels down the line. Make yourself something more inclusive like "Joe's Wheels Inc." or just "Joe's Parts Inc".
Second, and probably most importantly, a brand image is more important than a brand name. Your websites should all have a consist look and feel. Your policies should be consistent (don't have free shipping on one site and $9.99 shipping on the next). And of course, the overall customer experience should be the same.
sagewing — 2011-04-13T20:56:42-04:00 — #10
Actually, this is primarily an issue ONLY for larger businesses. Is your business even established enough to have these branding concerns at this point?
votrechien1 — 2011-04-15T01:51:08-04:00 — #11
Branding can't be emphasized enough especially in internet retail where the old things like price and location are poor competitive advantages.
As I'm sure most can relate to, frequently I buy from the same websites, even if they're not necessarily the cheapest or the fastest, just because they've satisfied my expectations in the past...I don't want to spend 2 hours researching where to buy a $50 widget. What a colossal shame if a company has earned my repeat business but won't get it because I can't remember who they are.
PS> The OP has some implied success just by the fact he's thinking about these issues and is also incorporating at the same time.
green_moon — 2011-04-17T12:51:50-04:00 — #12
One question is whether, in your business, you even need to worry about how you brand the company at all. There are plenty of companies that have separate brands that put most, if not all, of their efforts into building the individual brands. Some of them, like [Proctor and Gamble are big enough that they have name recognition themselves. Others, like [URL="http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2623.html"]Consolidated Foods Corp. had virtually no corporate name recognition for decades until it eventually took changed its corporate name to one of its better known brands, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Lee_Corporation"]Sara Lee](http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/all_brands.shtml).
Fortune Brands is another example of a company that is known by its individual brands. There are many, many more.
I am not saying that corporate branding isn't important in most cases, just that you need to decide what is important in your particular case. What you call your company may be not very important if there is no good business reason to try to pitch the corporation a business unto itself.
shyflower — 2011-04-17T21:06:37-04:00 — #13
What about calling the main corporation your "parent company" and its offshoots (the smaller companies) "branches" or "subsidiaries".
donmarvin — 2011-04-18T10:14:21-04:00 — #14
I'm transitioning my business to do something very similar. I'm calling myself a "web-based business developer". Or a "business development firm" -- building VIPs (Vertical Information Portals) for myself and clients, et al.
I believe that branding is important for anyone serious about their business. But it can be expensive. So I haven't actually done it for myself yet.
sagewing — 2011-04-18T10:45:30-04:00 — #15
Important, yes. Expensive, yes. But for many small businesses, not really relevant.
But the idea of 'branding' is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the small business world. Commonly confused with simple advertising or logo/website design, branding is a much more sophisticated discipline. It's easy to say that 'every company needs to consider branding' but what does that really mean?
If you are a one-man shop you may have a naturally evolved brand that comes from your reputation, your logo, and your website but does that mean that you need to go through a brand analysis? Is there enough of an audience to really consider whether your position or market statement is effective? Usually not.
Even a small company that holds other websites may not be involved in much of a branding effort beyond the creation and integration of an umbrella logo/brand that is used on the child companies. Sure, that could be considered branding but mostly it's just naming/logo work unless you are evolved enough to actually have a public perception and association with your company that you need to manage.
Whenever I hear a tiny company talking about their 'brand management' I usually assume that they aren't that experienced in marketing or they wouldn't be throwing around the word 'brand' so much. This is kind of like when I see a tiny company with someone calling themselves the CEO even though they have no board - very telling.