Maybe Friend wasn't crazy for spending $1.8M on a domain after all

brands, marketing, startup, VC, venture capital

Image Credits: Emilija Manevska / Getty Images

When AI companion startup Friend revealed it had spent $1.8 million on buying the www.friend.com domain name last week, it set off a debate around what exactly branding is worth, and how startups should be spending cash. Founders of other companies like Loom and Public came forward to share stories of their own quests to lock down a domain, but the questions continued rolling in: Did Friend overspend for its domain? Will it really make a difference?

Avi Schiffmann, the founder and CEO of Friend, told TechCrunch over email that the purchase has already paid for itself. And there may be a method to the madness, given that buying domain names for millions of dollars isn’t particularly a new thing — Tesla paid an estimated $10 million over the span of a decade for “tesla.com,” and mortgage startup Better.com paid $1.8 million for its domain in 2015, the year it was founded. And according to some reports, OpenAI apparently paid $11 million for “ai.com.”

Alex Harris, a co-founder of startup marketing firm Fiat Growth and founding GP at early-stage VC firm Fiat Ventures, told TechCrunch that getting the name, domain and branding right can have a big impact on how a company grows.

The right name or domain can help startups be not only easy to find but also easy to remember, Harris said. He added that “.com” domains are king (sorry “.ai” companies) — and shorter is always better when it comes to names or domains.

“In many cases, the name is critical when there is any kind of word-of-mouth [promotion],” Harris said. “The name is easy to spell, easy to say. These are some of the things we talk about that are really quite simple, but a lot of people ignore [them].”

Olivier Toubia, a marketing professor at Columbia Business School, said one nuance to consider when thinking of a name is how often you want customers to interact with your business. If it’s a consumer product that users will turn to often, or software that businesses will use every day, coming up with something unique and memorable like Google or Twitter could be a smart play.

And if a company’s product is something that users turn to less often, or only when they need to, it’s better to choose a name that is generic enough to easily come up on search engines.

“If you [are] a product or service that [people] won’t necessarily use very frequently or maybe when they need you, they will Google or search for you,” Toubia said, pointing out how someone may search for a locksmith if they were locked out of their apartment.

And in the case of startups that customers don’t interact with on a daily basis —think healthcare companies — most of the big ones like Spring Health and Cityblock Health all have “health” in their name to make it clear what they do, as well as for SEO purposes.

Harris feels getting the name and domain right adds a touch of legitimacy to businesses. A professional-sounding name and domain helps people trust a company if they haven’t heard of it before, be they customers, potential hires or even investors.

“We all get emails from [companies] with a super long domain or weird domain extension, and it de-legitimizes it,” Harris said. “If you have a domain that is desirable, [people] pay attention.”

Harris also feels spending $1.8 million on a domain, as Friend did, isn’t as crazy as it may seem at first. He said that if buying that domain helps the company’s business, which he predicts it will, that purchase will pay for itself over time. And a good domain like that can double as solid IP that can be sold if needed.

Caution.com

Larger companies can probably afford to spend millions on branding, but does it make sense for startups that are still building a product and going to market?

Harris and Toubia both warned that there are things to keep in mind here, of course. In Friend’s case, both said the amount of money spent on buying the domain name is only going to be worth it if it isn’t preventing the startup from actually building a product.

“The name is important, but you have to sell and develop a product,” Toubia said. “If you already burned 70% of the cash and don’t have a product, investors may not be very happy with that. That may hurt your ability to raise [more money] in the future.”

There are clear advantages to locking in your branding early on, but companies must also make sure they don’t paint themselves into a corner with a name or branding that could make it hard to pivot later, Toubia said. If a company completely changes its business down the line, or chooses a name that is subject to legal action, that early branding could prove costly.

It could also be risky to choose a name that is too similar to another company’s. If the companies are in wildly different sectors and wouldn’t confuse a potential customer, it probably won’t matter. But the stakes change dramatically if a company with a similar name commits fraud or another act that would result in a less-than-ideal association.

Even in less drastic terms, if a name is too similar, it could just cause general confusion, Harris said, like in the case of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s press conference at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping a few years ago.

Regardless of how Friend’s decision to purchase their costly domain works out, both Harris and Toubia both said the fact that we are talking about their decision to do so shows their strategy might already be working.

“It’s kind of like naming a kid,” Harris said. “You get to the point where you say, I almost don’t care anymore; these five names are fine, just pick one and be done with it. In that moment of frustration, be patient and push through. It is very important. Don’t settle on something because it’s easy, because it’s cheap. Think about the assets available and who you are competing against.”

Maybe Friend wasn't crazy for spending $1.8M on a domain after all

brands, marketing, startup, VC, venture capital

Image Credits: Emilija Manevska / Getty Images

When AI companion startup Friend revealed it had spent $1.8 million on buying the www.friend.com domain name last week, it set off a debate around what exactly branding is worth, and how startups should be spending cash. Founders of other companies like Loom and Public came forward to share stories of their own quests to lock down a domain, but the questions continued rolling in: Did Friend overspend for its domain? Will it really make a difference?

Avi Schiffmann, the founder and CEO of Friend, told TechCrunch over email that the purchase has already paid for itself. And there may be a method to the madness, given that buying domain names for millions of dollars isn’t particularly a new thing — Tesla paid an estimated $10 million over the span of a decade for “tesla.com,” and mortgage startup Better.com paid $1.8 million for its domain in 2015, the year it was founded. And according to some reports, OpenAI apparently paid $11 million for “ai.com.”

Alex Harris, a co-founder of startup marketing firm Fiat Growth and founding GP at early-stage VC firm Fiat Ventures, told TechCrunch getting the name, domain and branding right can have a big impact on how a company grows.

The right name or domain can help startups be not only easy to find but also easy to remember, Harris said. He added that “.com” domains are king (sorry “.ai” companies) — and shorter is always better when it comes to names or domains.

“In many cases, the name is critical when there is any kind of word-of-mouth [promotion],” Harris said. “The name is easy to spell, easy to say. These are some of the things we talk about that are really quite simple, but a lot of people ignore [them].”

Olivier Toubia, a marketing professor at Columbia Business School, said one nuance to consider when thinking of a name is how often you want customers to interact with your business. If it’s a consumer product that users will turn to often, or a software that businesses will use every day, coming up with something unique and memorable, like Google or Twitter, could be a smart play.

And if a company’s product is something that users turn to less often, or only when they need to, it’s better to choose a name that is generic enough to easily come up on search engines.

“If you [are] a product or service that [people] won’t necessarily use very frequently or maybe when they need you, they will Google or search for you,” Toubia said, pointing to how someone may search for a locksmith if they were locked out of their apartment.

And in the case of startups that customers don’t interact with on a daily basis —think healthcare companies — most of the big ones like Spring Health and Cityblock Health all have “health” in their name to make it clear what they do and likely for SEO.

Harris feels getting the name and domain right also adds a touch of legitimacy to a business. A professional-sounding name and domain helps people trust a company if they haven’t heard of it before, be they customers, potential hires, or even investors.

“We all get emails from [companies] with a super long domain or weird domain extension, and it de-legitimizes it,” Harris said. “If you have a domain that is desirable, [people] pay attention.”

Harris also feels spending $1.8 million on a domain, as Friend did, isn’t as crazy as it may seem at first. He said that if buying that domain helps the company’s business, which he predicts it will, that purchase will pay for itself over time. And a good domain like that can double as solid IP that can be sold if needed.

Caution.com

Larger companies can probably afford to spend millions on branding, but does it make sense for startups that are still building a product and going to market?

Harris and Toubia both warned that there are things to keep in mind here, of course. In Friend’s case, both said the amount of money spent on buying the domain name is only going to be worth it if it isn’t preventing the startup from actually building a product.

“The name is important, but you have to sell and develop a product,” Toubia said. “If you already burned 70% of the cash and don’t have a product, investors may not be very happy with that. That may hurt your ability to raise [more money] in the future.”

There are clear advantages to locking in your branding early on, but companies must also make sure they don’t paint themselves into a corner with name or branding that could make it hard for them to pivot later, Toubia said. If a company completely changes its business down the line, or chooses a name that is subject to legal action, that early branding could prove costly.

It could also be risky to choose a name that is too similar to another company’s. If the companies are in wildly different sectors and wouldn’t confuse a potential customer, it probably won’t matter. But the stakes change dramatically if a company with a similar name commits fraud or another act that would result in a less-than-ideal association.

Even in less drastic terms, if a name is too similar, it could just cause general confusion, Harris said, like in the case of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s press conference at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping a few years ago.

Regardless of how Friend’s decision to purchase their costly domain works out, both Harris and Toubia both said the fact that we are talking about their decision to do so shows their strategy might already be working.

“It’s kind of like naming a kid,” Harris said. “You get to the point where you say, I almost don’t care anymore; these five names are fine, just pick one and be done with it. In that moment of frustration, be patient and push through. It is very important. Don’t settle on something because it’s easy, because it’s cheap. Think about the assets available and who you are competing against.”

a huge word balloon coming from a tiny twitter bird logo

Maybe count to 10 before you tweet

a huge word balloon coming from a tiny twitter bird logo

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch

Welcome to Startups Weekly — your weekly recap of everything you can’t miss from the world of startups. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Friday.

Garry Tan heads up Y Combinator, the most powerful startup program in the world. At the tail end of last week, he tweeted — I mean, X-ed — some pretty grim shit, telling politicians to “die slow.” He since deleted the tweet, but the drama was the talk of the town this week.

Still, Tan’s allegedly inebriated tirade served as a welcome distraction from another surge of tech layoffs over the past week (you’re not imagining things — it’s real). The layoffs hit pretty close to home this week, as some of our TechCrunch colleagues were laid off, including some close friends of mine who I’ve known and worked with for going on a decade now. Our paths will cross again, friends!

Okay, so what else was going down in the world of startups? Let’s dive in.

Most interesting startup stories this week

Image Credits: Plex

In a move that screams, “We’re almost there, promise!” Plex, the media streaming underdog, has scooped up $40 million in what feels like their umpteenth round of funding, in a confusingly named Series C-3 round. The company is still chasing the profitability milestone, and with a strategy that seems to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks — from ad-supported content to social sharing features — Plex is betting big on becoming a major player in the streaming game. Whether they’ll cross the profitability finish line or just add more features remains a cliffhanger worthy of its own drama series. Maybe Plex will commission that next.

In a masterclass on how not to win friends and influence regulators, Apple takes the crown with its dramatic reaction to regulatory compliance demands. With the grace of a sulky teenager, the company begrudgingly introduced changes required by laws like Europe’s Digital Markets Act, all while scaremongering about the potential risks these changes could pose to users. Despite its vast resources, Apple chooses to play the victim, warning that these regulatory adjustments are detrimental to its user base, whom it apparently views as incapable of making informed decisions. This approach not only risks burning bridges with developers, who are growing increasingly frustrated with Apple’s antics, but also threatens to tarnish its political goodwill.

Hold the Fitbit, here’s a sickbit: In a world obsessed with fitness tracking, Visible says, “Hold my wearable” and introduces illness tracking, because, what we really need is a daily reminder of our chronic ailments. It’s like having a pocket-sized friend whispering, “Maybe just don’t today,” every morning.

Most interesting fundraises this week

Image Credits: Chef Robotics

“The fundraising cycle, once you start it, takes twice as long and requires three times the conversations,” Jesse Randall, the founder of the platform Sweater Ventures, tells Dominic-Madori in an interview. Here’s what to know to raise a Series A right now. (TC+)

Metronome, a startup fond of turning complicated billing into not-that-complicated, especially for AI companies, has just closed $43 million in Series B funding. With roots in Dropbox and a client list that reads like a who’s who of tech (think OpenAI and Nvidia), they’re making the shift from subscription to usage-based billing a lot less complex. Their secret sauce? Metronome’s riding high on a 6x revenue increase, all while keeping its valuation a coy mystery.

Grab the salsa, we’ve already got the chips: In the world of AI chips, where the norm is throwing money at problems hoping something sticks, Rebellions just bagged a cool $124 million Series B to join the fray. However this shakes out, it’s an underdog story for the ages.

Can you smmmmmell what the ’bot is cooking?: In a world where flipping burgers by hand is so very 2023, Chef Robotics has just bagged $15 million to convince commercial kitchens that the future lies in food assembly by robots, not humans. Why chop onions when you can have a robot do it for you?

Reining in the robots: Throwing money at generative AI security is the new black — Aim Security just bagged a cool $10 million to ensure your ChatGPT doesn’t go rogue.

This week’s big trend: Layoffs. Again.

Aerial view of Silicon Valley from 30,000 feet. Image Credits: Getty Images / Charles O’Rear

I know, I know. We thought that was all behind us, but  . . . alas.

In the latest plot twist of the layoffs saga, giants like Microsoft and Alphabet are flaunting their profit while simultaneously thinning their employee ranks. Meanwhile, in the scrappy underdog corner of startup land, venture capital is playing hard to get, leaving many a startup stranded in a financial no-man’s-land. It’s a classic case of corporate “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” proving once again that in the tech world, the more things change, the more the layoff announcements stay eerily similar.

Gotta control that spend: In an ironic twist of corporate frugality, Brex, the spend management startup, has shifted from inflating its employee roster to slashing it by nearly 20% in a desperate attempt to stop burning through $17 million a month.

Raising cash while slashing staff: Flexport, having already made it rain with $2.7 billion in funding, is eyeing another round of layoffs, proving that even with deep pockets, they’re not above trimming the workforce fat . . . again, just weeks after bagging an extra $260 million from Shopify.

Gotta pay the piper: PayPal has decided to trim its workforce again, this time axing 9% of its staff — or roughly 2,500 people. We can only surmise that the strategy is based on the little-known fact that the best way to innovate is to make sure there are fewer innovators around.

Other unmissable TechCrunch stories . . .

Every week, there’s always a few stories I want to share with you that somehow don’t fit into the categories above. It’d be a shame if you missed ’em, so here’s a random grab bag of goodies for ya:

Back to work, cog: In a world where even AI can catch the “lazy bug,” OpenAI has decided to slash prices and revamp the work ethic of its GPT-4 model, ensuring it no longer shies away from completing tasks. It seems the AI was quietly embodying a digital form of quiet quitting, but fear not, the latest update promises a more diligent and cost-effective virtual colleague.

India’s first AI unicorn: Ola founder’s AI venture, Krutrim, grabs the title in record time with a cool $50 million funding round at a valuation north of a billion clams, claiming to be India’s first AI heavyweight without even breaking a sweat.

You creep, stop searching that: X’s handling of the Taylor Swift deepfake saga proved just how low the bar is set for content moderation. This incident highlighted the comical inadequacy of current safeguards, essentially making the internet’s Wild West look like a playground for the digitally inept.

More like departure: Arrival, the commercial EV startup once celebrated for its innovative microfactory concept, has gone from a $13 billion valuation to potentially being worth pocket change, proving that not all that glitters in the SPAC world is gold. Now its shares are set to vanish from the Nasdaq.

iGiveUp: Amazon’s grand plan to take over the world with robot vacuums hit a snag, and their $1.4 billion deal with iRobot is now just a pile of dust. Meanwhile, iRobot, facing a future without Amazon’s wallet, starts cutting jobs and dreaming up the next big thing in home automation.

IPO AHEAD pn road sign

Maybe we'll finally see a fintech IPO in 2024

IPO AHEAD pn road sign

Image Credits: hanibaram (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Welcome to TechCrunch Fintech (formerly The Interchange)! We’re back after a brief hiatus, and I can tell you that judging by the volume of pitches I received last week, venture investing in the fintech space is definitely picking up. This week, we’re looking at Plaid’s latest step toward an IPO, one BNPL company’s financial results, and more. Let’s dive in!

To get a roundup of TechCrunch’s biggest and most important fintech stories delivered to your inbox every Sunday at 7:30 a.m. PT, subscribe here.

The big story

This past week, Plaid announced it had hired its first-ever president. Notably, the former Cloudflare chief product officer, Jen Taylor, has plenty of experience in helping take a private company public — something we expect Plaid will be doing in the relatively near future. Coincidentally, I was already working on a “Here are the fintech startups that could go public in 2024” piece. With the help of F-Prime Capital, I compiled a list of the fintechs that have the potential to go public sooner rather than later. Klarna, Chime, Stripe are just a few of those mentioned.

Analysis of the week

Speaking of public companies, buy now, pay later outfit Affirm released its earnings this past week. Despite notching 48% higher revenue of $591 million compared to estimates of $521 million, investors remained cautious. After a 7% run-up on Thursday, shares dropped by nearly 11% on Friday to close at $43.86. It’s important to note, though, that this is not that far from Affirm’s 52-week high and is nearly double what it was trading at in November. In general, public fintechs had a better year last year. “Aggregate market cap reached $573B by year-end 2023, up from the trough of $389B in December 2022 — but down from a $1.3T peak in September 2021,” per an email from F-Prime Capital.

Dollars and cents

Ingrid had a great scoop with the news that Entrust is buying AI-based ID verification startup Onfido for more than $400 million.

New unicorn alert! Romain reported that accounting software startup Pennylane became France’s latest unicorn with a €40 million fundraise.

Meanwhile, Christine reported that another accounting startup — Finally — raised $10 million in equity funding. Miami-based Finally aims to help businesses automate accounting and finance functions.

ICYMI: Spend management startup Ramp acquired AI-powered startup Venue as it expands its procurement offering, and Metronome’s usage-billing software finds a hit in AI as the startup raises $43 million in fresh capital.

What else we’re writing

Reliance Industries spinoff Jio Financial Services said that it is not negotiating with Paytm to acquire its wallet business, quashing “speculative” media reports as the firm scrambled to put out a fire from the central bank’s clampdown the previous week.

An Indian parliamentary panel has urged the government to support the growth of domestic fintech players that can provide alternatives to the Walmart-backed PhonePe and Google Pay apps that currently command more than 83% of the country’s digital payments market.

PayPal is working on a new consumer app for its mobile customers and suggested that it will be “ready” to take advantage of the new EU regulation, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), when it goes into effect next month for tech “gatekeepers” like Apple.

Don’t miss Tage’s deep dive on how African startups are facing many of the same problems plaguing fintechs in more mature markets like the U.K. and the U.S.

High-interest headlines

Kin Insurance fuels growth with $15M in funding

Construction insurance tech startup Shepherd nabs $13.5M Series A funding round

RealReports raises $2M in seed funding

Pagaya Secures $280 Million Credit Facility for AI-Driven Consumer Finance Products

Navro secures EMI licence and raises $14m to revolutionise global payments

Andrew Witty, chief executive officer of UnitedHealth Group Inc., speaks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. (Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg)

UnitedHealthcare CEO says 'maybe a third' of US citizens were affected by recent hack

Andrew Witty, chief executive officer of UnitedHealth Group Inc., speaks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. (Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg)

Image Credits: Al Drago/Bloomberg / Getty Images

Two months after hackers broke into Change Healthcare systems stealing and then encrypting company data, it’s still unclear how many Americans were impacted by the cyberattack.

Last month, Andrew Witty, the CEO of Change Healthcare’s parent company UnitedHealth Group, said that the stolen files include the personal health information of “a substantial proportion of people in America.”

On Wednesday, during a House hearing, when pushed to give a more definitive answer, Witty testified that the breach impacted “I think, maybe a third [of Americans] or somewhere of that level.”

Contact Us

Do you have more information about the Change Healthcare ransomware attack? From a non-work device, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram, Keybase and Wire @lorenzofb, or email. You also can contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

Witty said he was reluctant to give a more precise answer because the company is still investigating the breach and trying to figure out exactly how many people were affected.

UnitedHealth’s spokesperson Anthony Marusic did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Witty’s estimate.

During a hearing in the Senate earlier on Wednesday, Witty said that it will likely take “several months,” before the company can begin notifying victims of the data breach.

In a written statement filed by Witty ahead of the two hearings, the CEO wrote that “so far, we have not seen evidence of exfiltration of materials such as doctors’ charts or full medical histories among the data.”

According to Witty’s testimony, the hackers “used compromised credentials to remotely access a Change Healthcare Citrix portal,” which was not protected by multi-factor authentication, a basic cybersecurity measure that adds an extra step to log into accounts and systems.

Had that portal had multi-factor authentication enabled, the breach may not have happened. Several Senators grilled Witty on that failure, asking him whether UnitedHealth and Change Healthcare systems are now protected with multi-factor authentication.

During the Senate hearing, Witty said: “We have an enforced policy across the organization to have multi-factor authentication on all of our external systems, which is in place.”