In 2023, Warner Bros. Discovery faced a problem: too many streaming brands, not enough clarity. HBO Max, Discovery+, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Studios…the list went on. Their solution? A rebrand. They dropped “HBO” and tried to unite everything under one name: Max. On paper, it sounded simple. Broader, friendlier, and family-ready. And, to make it stick, they went big, paying $1.8 million for Max.com. The domain was clean, powerful, and unforgettable. What should have worked as a solid rebrand ended up flopping. “HBO” wasn’t the liability; it was the draw. For decades, it had stood for prestige and quality…the Sunday-night anticipation that kept people loyal. By stripping it away, Warner didn’t gain focus. They lost meaning. And “Max”? It was too vague and generic. Google it and you’re buried under a blur of Max the dog, Max Verstappen, Max from Stranger Things, and a dozen fitness influencers. Customers were confused and some even thought the brand was was actually Cinemax. By May 2025, just two years later, Warner quietly reversed course. No big announcement; just a soft return to the name people trusted all along: HBO Max. Max.com remains live, still redirecting, still a premium domain. But now, it’s a $1.8M reminder that even the best .com can’t save a weak brand strategy.

Was watching the football game when I saw an ad for adult diapers. I had some time to myself today and started playing around with a print ad (target audience likely still subscribes to magazines) for a similar product using a few different headlines/subheads. Whatcha think?

Unless you still get your daily dose of advertising via print, you’ve likely heard the commercial for the weight loss drug, Ozempic, that re-writes the lyrics to the 1974 song (It’s) Magic) by Pilot. Although the only change was using ‘Ozempic’ in place of ‘It’s magic,’ I’d argue that if people heard the tune without lyrics, a large number of people would label it as “the Ozempic Song.” My question to the seasoned advertisers of the group, what is your opinion on using existing popular music in ads and other media, versus using time and resources to create your own? I bring this up because although the jingle era of advertising is still slightly present on the FM dial, you don’t often hear the once iconic tunes of the Green Giant, or Folgers telling us about best part of waking up. Even recent ones like State Farm have been reduced to just five notes played at the open. But could the success of the Ozempic re-write old pop songs be replicated in a time where attention spans have never been shorter? Well, multiple sclerosis med, Briumvi is going to find out after launching their latest commercial that inserts their name into roller-rink favorite, Take On Me by A-ha! In my opinion, advertising is all about doing your own thing, replicating strategies others have found success in, and creating pieces that consumers won’t hate themselves for looking at. Distinguishing yourself doesn’t meant coming up with something never done before; it’s doing something that looks, sounds, and feels like no one could ever do it better! I’ve linked some more examples.

1-Minute typing test: Take off 1 point for every mistake. What's your WPW Score? https://www.typing.com/student/typing-test/1-minute 61-3=58. Beat my score! 🏆

(from Snagged.com) - - - - - Most people assume that Sting.com has always belonged to Sting. The one with decades of hits, multiple Grammys, and enough cultural cachet to be recognized by a single name. But for years, it belonged to someone else entirely. And when the rockstar finally tried to take it back, he lost in a very public way. The man who beat him was Michael Urvan, a gamer who had been using the handle “Sting” for online gaming since the early 1990s. In 1995, when the internet still ran on dial-up and personal websites were stitched together with Geocities banners, he registered Sting.com. It wasn’t a business play or speculation. It was personal, a digital nameplate in the online world he inhabited daily. In those early days, domain registrations like this were common. Early adopters often grabbed names tied to hobbies, handles, or inside jokes. There were no brand playbooks or growth strategies. A domain was simply a stake in the ground. Five years later, Gordon Sumner, better known as Sting, decided he wanted it. His legal team filed a complaint under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, arguing that his fame and long-standing use of the name gave him the right to claim it. Urvan didn’t back down. He showed that “Sting” had been his identity for years, that the domain was registered in good faith, and that he had no interest in exploiting the musician’s fame. The World Intellectual Property Organization agreed. “Sting” was a common English word, not an exclusive trademark. Urvan kept the domain, and the ruling became one of the first high-profile cases where a celebrity lost a domain dispute. Today, Sting.com is the musician’s official site. There isn’t any public record of how or when it changed hands, suggesting a quiet deal behind the scenes. But the legal precedent stands. The takeaway is simple. Being early still matters. Consistency builds legitimacy. And in the world of domains, ownership is powerful leverage.