Industry keywords are one thing, but recycling a name is another thing. I have to err on the side fairness here (for creatives and CHs AND SH). CHs, in my mind come looking for a name that is perfect for them. Yes, often times they want something simple, something understandable, something that everyone will understand almost instantly, something that’s easy to pronounce/spell/remember – but that does not mean that they ACTUALLY want (even though it seems that way sometimes) something that has been done a million times, if they did they wouldn’t worry about having .coms available, they wouldn’t worry about having problem-free TMs. They would just come here and start a contest for 100$ that doesn’t ask for a url and say ‘give me things similar to what has won in this category before’. The concept that they are the ultimate judge and are choosing what they choose and to be happy of that is only a good argument if we could be assured that all CHs knew the full extent to how many instances certain names have nearly been replicated over and over again. We as creatives, in my opinion, spend time here more than the CHs do – have more experience here than the CHs do – and we know what has been submitted in the past, has won in the past. Therefore, in my opinion, we should – as a whole – take it upon ourselves to be the creatives we are and not just rehash past winners over and over (unless we were the ones that came up with the winner). I understand that instances occur of ‘great minds think alike’, but outside of that we should do our best to give to the CHs the kind of experience they have paid for and that – in my mind – includes putting in as much effort as possible to give them an original, fitting name – because then we are not stealing the value away from the original creative that put their time and effort into it; we are being fair to the CH who probably wants something that’s common, simple, etc but not basically recycled; and we are honoring rules as well as respecting the very platform that allows to do this by upholding to the very title we are given ‘CREATIVE’. But, this is just my opinion.
Do consider the practical realities and limitations of crowdsourcing and the contest format, which by nature greatly favors the contest holder. Most CHs don’t care about or reward all of us who put in great effort for them and even if they do it isn’t practical to. They are looking for lots of options, value for money and so on. We creatives are all fighting to get their attention, give them names they like and only one of us is going to be rewarded in the end (Usually). CHs are paying much much less and getting way more and varied options than they would with a branding agency.
We creatives have no say in what the contest holder selects as a winner and all we expect is for the CHs to do their homework and see if the name they choose as winner is fit for their purpose. Squadhelp offers a long time after the contest and ability to extend contests for CHs to ensure that they pick a name that really suits them, and even then some don’t. Failing all that, they can contact Squadhelp and pick another name from the plethora of submissions by paying a 100$ fee to that creative.
But enough with the doom and gloom, Squadhelp is thriving and we have many happy and repeat contest holders, so I do feel that we collectively are doing very well in pleasing contest holders.
Well, I appreciate “hearing” this and it has answered my question about whether or not I should be doing it as well. So long as SH and the CHs and my fellow creatives are OK with it, and I won’t have problems with SH for doing it, I now know my own way forward.
This has been a very interesting conversation. Thanks to ALL for it.
Either way there are rules and agreements and submitting something that is ‘closely inspired’ (EDIT: Meaning technical variations “e.g. Squadhelp, Squad Help, Squad-Help, Squadhelp Inc., Squadhelp Co., etc.” – had to look up this exact terminology via SH policies and when first writing post, I was mobile and didn’t have quick access) or directly copying a past winning entry purposely is not only against the aforementioned (the last I checked, like everyone else saying I thought this wasn’t allowed) but edging close to being in the same basket as stealing and/or plagiarism and not sure why anyone would want to practically purposely stab the originator of the idea in the back as think how it would feel to have one of your best names practically purposely submitted to a contest just so they can win too. Not only that but that has the potential of doing a lot of negative things to SH as well if they become synonymous with that type of image.
As I said, industry keywords are fine and I’m not talking about them. But purposefully repurposing a name is going against the whole original creation agreement thing and just makes everyone look bad. It would be different if it was conceivable to think CHs would know every single name ever won on SH without having to go through a world of trouble and impossible amounts of time to do such when in a lot of cases it’s something we already know about and shouldn’t be a lot to ask if you do know an instance has occured to be original and not use others’ exact ideas.
But, again, my opinion and my last thought on this.
I don’t disagree with you on any of your points and will say I have, up to now, followed what I thought were the rules.
However… in some cases we are talking about real words, not words that are made up, being combined with other words. So for example, how many companies do you think there are that have the word strategy in them? The full word strategy, I mean. It’s not plagiarism if another company also has strategy in their name. StrategyPartners, StrategyInvestors, etc. Some words are more unique sounding than others but they are still real words. How many “rock” companies are there now?
Right now my feeling is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I am losing 5 contests a month because I won’t use the word strategy (just for example), I am the one with the problem. If the CH wanted strategy and I gave them “ChessMoves” or strategy in a foreign language or whatever, then we both lose.
So I have been thoroughly convinced now that I am OK using Strategy (again, just an example) 50 ways to Sunday even if eleventeen million people have used it and won in the last week.
PS: SH rules do not say we can’t use a word that has been used before. We CANNOT, however, use the exact name. And I do mean exact.
Fads and trends in words and names will come and go, and they will die off as relevant and short/attractive domains dry up. Original and creative namers have nothing to fear as the best always do well, even if just for a short time before they inevitably leave and someone else comes along to replace them. Ebb and flow of life.
If a fad word is what contest holders love or want used in their contest, and they ask for it, would any of us shy from using them? I would use the same logic for fad words we enter in contests where CHs love it and pick as a winner completely of their own accord, despite the option to pick any of hundreds of others.
P.S : And don’t forget that there is a huge huge world of people outside Squadhelp who would snap up any and all names and domain names they feel have any value. They have none of our limitations or reservations taken collectively. If a popular domain name marketplace registers a domain name, would they find and reward whoever originated the name and used it first?, I would think not.
If people reusing popular words was a problem, it could be solved by removing the winning names page and not displaying winning entries on a creative’s profile to others. It would also mean not displaying “Instant domains” to non-contest holders. Then no creative would have a clue what anybody else is doing, what popular words/trends are, and so on.
Reusing of some key words isn’t a problem. Copy pasting is.
Key words is the Key! If I have a master keyword(Key) that unlocks many contests(Doors), do not be deceived, I’ll use it one billion times. This is a crowdsourcing site, I’m not so keen on being the most creative Creative on here. The competition is to fierce for that.
@Vuriko, I am not sure what you mean by that but it must be something I am not aware of.
Edit: It just occurred to me what you may be talking about. There are some misspellings and combos that a LOT of people use. The thing I would say about that is just because one person thought of that, doesn’t mean others have not. I’ve seen those names on other platforms, too. There are times when I think I’ve been so clever and original only to find someone else entered that name into a contest, too. Probably the best evidence of that is domain registrations that are happening every day as we work, sometimes impacting us because somebody else thought of the same thing we did and registered it. Anyway, my point is that “some” names may not be exact spellings or may be combos but they are still really common and there’s no way to find out who in the universe thought of that first.
Can I just say… I am so incredibly impressed with how this extensive conversation has gone? The responses on the original post in this recent thread have been so incredibly thoughtful, civil and just fantastic. And I do mean everyone who has commented on the subject. Thanks to all. Talk about being encouraged on SH! You all encourage me with all of your great qualities!
nothing is original someone else will have either entered it or thought of it and decided against entering it
I disagree as most of my names tend to be original. Sure, I sometimes have names that are more mainstream but usually, I do my best to not create blends or compounds or even misspellings that have won on SH before. Yes, there are keywords and industry words and such but I will not take a name that has won before and just add on to it or slightly change it as that is crossing the line between ‘inspiration’ and ‘replication’ and to me, still symbolizes a ‘technical variation’. I put work into avoiding such scenarios and that’s probably why I don’t get the ‘easy wins’ but I have too much of a moral compass and respect for intelligence and creativity to bank purposely on something someone else put work into coming up with.
My personal opinion is that there are no easy wins in the big picture of crowdsourcing, even if it seems easy in the face of trends or in the context of a single contest. Crowdsourcing just has a different effort and reward equation and is like regularly playing the lottery, just that skill and knowledge actually helps your chances even if very little at times. We don’t win in most contests that we put the most effort in, were the most creative and original in, and so on; but we may win in another despite putting in minimal or token effort/original thinking, the name being sub par or judged as cliche and so on. It balances out in terms of overall effort/reward if things go well.
In crowdsourcing, I see any and all wins a creative gets as rewards for the overall uncertainty, putting in the work regardless of there being no assurance of reward, all the unrewarded effort, the unseen and unappreciated creativity, and so on. Most of all, if something wins regardless how common or obvious it seems to us, the contest holder likes it and wouldn’t have thought of it without help, and the contestant satisfying and possibly understanding that particular customer is worthy of praise.
Interesting, how did you discover that you were the winner? Thinking about it, I guess I depend on receiving the email or noticing after I sign in that I am due some money.
@Awintura This happened to me earlier this month. I was told it was a glitch and I did receive the money. I also had to get them to correct my stats to reflect the win. Just give it a few days and follow up if needed.
Some losses are WAY more disappointing than others. Just sayin’
Can I get a prayer for a green face, jeeezi, and the feedback I get is horribly off the mark
Here you go, Seezall!!!