Anti-uniqueness search engine (re-)optimisation

An adaptation of an opinion I previously posted as a lengthy thread on Bluesky and that wasn't the first time I posted there about this subject. This piece may contain en-dashes and em-dashes but it was not written by or with the aid of AI.

We have entered a counter-uniqueness era – at least online – because between constant online surveillance, tracking, and archiving, that may well be the safest approach to protect brand – but perhaps moreso people's – identities and privacy, be that for innocent reasons or perhaps on (borderline) nefarious grounds.

The internet as we know it may be disappearing, but that's not enough ground to believe the internet won't forget and allow us to move on from our pasts or even enable entirely new beginnings.

Search engine optimisation

In that context (and as I've posted before) I find it fascinating that, while people and (start-up) brands used to come up with unique names, the trend in recent years seems to be to pick common words as names, that get them buried in search engine results.

It's still Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), but now applied in reverse compared to how it was done before. Which can make names harder to find for potential customers/audiences but also preemptively helps bury stuff whenever that's convenient. Search queries for a common word that's also a brand name may yield first-page results for the brand during launches and promotional campaigns and at the height of success/failure, but not outside them, and that's especially convenient to those lacking faith or aspiration in their personal or commercial (online) brand.

There are benefits to that. Sure, it requires extra work to find and reacht prospective audiences (because audiences may struggle to find them), but that's nothing new, certainly not in a country like the UK with established brands like The Mirror and The Sun.

(Quick side note: That Lily Allen lyric still works when you're unfamiliar with those media titles and hearing her sing those lines thus not reading any capitalisation).

Brands got big before the internet, search engines and SEO existed and brands can perhaps still get big without or in spite of SEO. Or they can use SEO differently to the conventional goal of maximum visibility and any and all times.

Chances to move on

As someone reasonably in touch with real life as well as online lore, I cheer on innocent individuals seeking to perhaps move on from accidental online fame or using it as a force for good. Innocent people who were seriously harmed by legacy media or internet culture through no fault of their own deserve better protections, in my opinion, even if such protections combined with collective (online) forgetfulness may enable grifters to reinvent themselves repeatedly. (The latter would perhaps happen less if legacy media wisened up and stopped offering disproportionate platforms and enabling manipulation.)

Cynicism

Also, I'm a cynical so-and-so who, over the years, has seen several individuals achieve independent wealth on the back of investor money poured into their (start-up) brands in ways that made me think these people's main goal was never to make their brand a success, but rather that their goal was personal enrichment. And they succeeded even if their brands failed.

If their start-up business failed to ever turn (enough of) a profit and the funding used to outsource actual labour while paying themselves corporate C-level salaries dried up, sure, penthouses or villas were put up for sale (since they could no longer cover the mortgage) and luxury cars were put up for auction.

But I personally – yes, I know, anecdotal, not empirical – never saw any of these founders end up broke-broke: even in failure of their ventures and supposed insolvency, they themselves tended to end up with more than they had originally started with.

No longer wealthy, perhaps, but left with enough personal liquidity and equity from sold real estate and luxury items (as well as perhaps some capital hidden off-shore) to buy an unprestigious apartment with no or only a tiny mortgage and possibly even an unassuming small/midsize car. More than what they had started with and certainly not broke-broke (unlike former suppliers, employees and contractors whose labour they might have exploited in the process and who may have been owed pay as the venture stranded). By current standards, arguably relatively affluent, even, despite their failure.

Having previously chosen a popular name or common word for their (personal or commercial) brand they can now withdraw into relative anonymity and move on from their debacle. Only if they were to actively seek out attention, that might temporarily put them back on a search engine's first page. They may never escape the past entirely, but the move on from it will likely be less difficult than had their brand name been more unique, more memorable.

Inconsiderate

Perhaps this is just me being distrustful and cynical, but I personally – yes, I know, again, anecdotal, not empirical – just never met or otherwise learned of founders more devoted to much if anything other than growing their own net worths.

Even the ones who did start at the methaphorical coal face and did at least the initial actual work themselves. Even the ones whose ventures did not fail. In case of the latter, founders seemed more invested in gainful exit strategies for themselves, personally, than in long-term planning/ambitions for the ventures that were their creations and supposed babies.

Objectives geared towards success of the brand/venture always came secondary to personal aspirations of wealth. Ambitions of growth that involved hiring only served to outsource (if not exploit) actual labour and imply growth (even if there wasn't any) that might encourage further investments; hiring was rarely accompanied by concern for individuals. Legal considerations tended to be addressed by typing questions into search engines or consulting (friends of) friends with law degrees (not necessarily in the right areas of law).

(Side note: This may, at least in part, explain this report from a few days ago.)

Consequences

Those who possibly miscalculated legal risks and actually ended up in prison – personally I don't know anyone in real life who did – may never fully be able to dissociate themselves from their past (misad)ventures, but I still reckon some will have less difficulty than others, and at least part of that will be down to the (non-)uniqueness, (un-)memorability, and (arduous) searchability of names chosen in the past. On this I may end up being proven wrong but I think it will be less painstaking to disconnect one's future unincarcerated (online) self (and reputation) from a name like Frank than it will be from a name such as Theranos. (Other examples are available.)

Future concerns

As technology enables ever more tracking and monitoring and record-keeping, (relative) anonymity and invisibility, be it personally or in a brand/business context, may be the favoured way to go.

And I think at least in business that's already the trend, with SEO strategies seemingly increasingly geared towards reduced visibility and even obfuscation by way of avoiding of distinctive (fanciful) names and deliberately deploying common (dull) names and terms, in spite of the obvious downsides to that.

Soon more individuals may follow and apply that strategy/trend to increasingly giving themselves and their children unassuming, common names (again) and applying standard common spellings to them. Navigating a workplace or classroom with at least three Pauls and Lisas (again) may feel like a throw-back to other times and prove something of a challenge (again), but navigating adult life as, say, Zach Jones, founder of a venture called Fabrics, may work out safer, securer and less demanding than navigating it as McKynleigh-Joi Falwell-DeWitt, founder of Crynkle-Køtz.

Final thought

There's more to this than I've already written. I wanted to illustrate what I wrote with more actual names, but decided it would be better for anyone reading this to find (or randomly spot) their own examples.

In addition, I've noticed more/other developments that I think may be linked, but did not feel like diving into that further—not today, anyway. If you stuck with me all this way to the end of this long ramble: Thank you.