Why did Nike choose this address as opposed to the commonly used http://www.nike.com/nikeid?

There may be a human comprehension component to the decision, but it also has the purely technical benefit that the product-specific website does not need to be co-hosted with the main website. The subdomain can have its own address records, and these may or may not be the same as the “www” generic address record. This separation makes it easier to separate administrative oversight of the brand-specific website from the generic website, and allows it to be hosted on a separate server farm if needs be.

You can achieve a similar result with a proxy server setup and placing the brand name in the path rather than the host component, but this tends to result in a slower and more complex setup, with the proxy server being a single point of failure that will take out the entire site if it goes down.

Why didn’t they choose http://www.nikeid.com?

Clearly they did register this name, probably as a pre-emptive measure against cybersquatters and other malicious registrations. The fact that it redirects to nikeid.nike.com suggests two lines of thought: avoid market confusion by ensuring that all Nike properties end in “.nike.com”, and avoid catastrophe resulting from failing to re-register a plethora of domain names. In the words of Pudd’nhead Wilson, “put all your eggs in one basket, and watch that basket.” If the registration on nikeid.com lapses, the worst they’ve done is expose themselves to possible malicious registration of a domain they haven’t promoted.

Is this proving a more effective way to deliver their message?

I doubt that the considerations are purely driven by marketing, given the other issues I’ve raised, but concentrating on “nike.com” avoids potential market confusion, as mentioned.

I find it mildly disturbing that you—a consultant for a domain name related business—have addressed the issue as though marketing were the only consideration.

Michael,

Thank you for providing us with a fresh perspective on this issue.  I wonder what would have happened if companies were allowed to acquire their .brand from the very beginning.  For instance, what if every domain name owned and operated by Nike had the company name to the right of the dot?  What if Nike’s customers only looked for domains with Nike to the right of the dot?  Would they have ventured beyond the left-hand side of the dot, i.e. nike.anyextension?  Would they have wanted to venture beyond the left-hand side of the dot?  Would they have trusted websites on domains with Nike to the left-hand side of the dot?  If such an arrangement were made available to companies long ago, would we have experienced the kind of trademark infringement issues due to company names to the left-hand side of the dot?  Perhaps this is why certain companies are starting to head in that direction, i.e. .Canon.  If history has taught us anything in the Information Age, it’s that walled gardens don’t last forever.

The use of subdomains in a logical manner to reflect things that are subsidiary to the main company/organization is merely using the domain name system as it was originally intended, as for instance cs.cmu.edu (in use since the 1980s for the Carnegie Mellon University computer science department).  Seeing more such use by major corporations is a good sign; maybe their marketing types are finally moving away from the concept that they need a Stupid Unnecessary Domain Name for every marketing gimmick.  (Only in baby steps, though, as seen by their still registering the plethora of other domains resembling the subdomain.)

Thanks Daniel. Logical flow in domain names increases brand and product recall which is essentially what brand holders are after in their online strategy. Giving them the ability to create a new, but also easily remembered domain name for each product and promotion can only increase the effectiveness of their communications, their brand awareness and the efficiency of their message, which is ultimately what all online brand strategies are looking to achieve.