discussion Share Your Brandable Domain and How You Think About Length

[Ricado]

I’d like to start a discussion based on my experience working with companies on brand domain planning, not SEO-focused naming strategies.

When domains are meant to be used as real brands, length rarely shows up as a technical issue. It shows up as a business and brand decision.

Before talking about length, there’s one assumption I usually need to align first.

---

For companies, the domain is the brand​

In enterprise contexts, a domain is not just a URL. It is the brand name.

That’s why companies don’t separate “brand direction” and “domain choice” into two unrelated decisions.

I often use a simple comparison when explaining this:

• Google does not use BestSearchEngine.com
• Microsoft does not use OperatingSystem.com
• Oracle does not use EnterpriseDatabase.com

Those names describe functions, not identities.

If we can’t treat domains as brands first, it’s very hard to have a meaningful discussion about length at all. Everything collapses back into SEO logic.

---

Instead of “how many letters”, I think in categories​

Rather than asking what length is “best”, I usually look at what type of brand the domain is trying to be.

Here’s how I personally break it down.

---

1. Native single-word domains​

Strong native single words, especially keywords, are already rare and expensive in today’s market.

In this category, length is usually not the deciding factor. The market has already priced in their value.

---

2. Acronym domains​

Acronyms are mainly about scarcity and fit, not creativity.

I usually see two very different cases here.

Non-pronounceable acronyms​

If a name can’t be pronounced naturally, it has to be spelled out letter by letter.

In practice, four letters seems to be the upper limit most companies are comfortable with. Four letters already mean four syllables.

Beyond that, communication cost rises quickly. Five or six-letter acronyms that can’t be pronounced are, for most brand use cases, nearly unusable.

Pronounceable acronyms or coined names​

For five to six letters, natural pronunciation becomes critical.

Clean structures like CVCVC or VCVCV tend to work best. Endings like “o”, “a”, or “ly” are usually more brand-friendly.

If a recognizable native word appears inside the structure, acceptance increases significantly.

---

3. Strict two-word brand domains​

This is the category I see enterprises accept most consistently.

One word sets the tone or character, the other anchors the meaning or industry.

My baseline here is simple: both words should be native dictionary words.

From a length perspective:

• 4 + 4 works extremely well
• 3 + 3 with clear meaning is even stronger
• Up to about 10 letters total is usually acceptable
• At 12 letters, quality has to be exceptional, strong keywords or very clean alliteration

---

4. Strong-root variants and compound coinages​

Beyond strict two-word domains, I’ve also seen companies accept variant words or compound names built on strong, familiar roots, prefixes, or suffixes.

These are not pure dictionary words, but the underlying structure is immediately readable and intentional.

Examples would be names like Accorden or Primode.

In practice, acceptance tends to be much higher when these stay under roughly 10 letters, assuming the core word is strong.

---

How I personally sanity-check length​

This isn’t a rulebook, just a working summary from real client discussions:

• Random or non-pronounceable combinations tend to work only under 4 letters
• Naturally pronounceable coined brands usually work best under 6 letters
• Two-word brands feel safest under 10 letters, with 4 + 4 being ideal
• Strong-root variants and compounds are usually better under 10 letters

---

Share your domain and your reasoning​

If you’re willing, share a domain and how you personally classify it.

For example:

• Peulo, ending with “o”
• Folyn, Wasub, CVCVC structure
• Actod, contains the native word “act”
• PinkPace, two native words with alliteration

At the same time, please bring measurable reasoning.

If it’s not CVCVC, what makes it pronounceable?
If it’s not built from native words, what makes it a two-word brand?

Not looking for agreement, just solid discussion and defensible thinking.

 

[cactusfly]

 

[Ricado]

@cactusfly
That image is actually a great illustration.

It captures perfectly what happens when we focus on formal criteria instead of asking who will actually use something and why.

And that’s exactly why I want to clarify one thing here: what I’m sharing are boundaries, not rules.

I’m not saying a four-letter name will always be accepted. What I’m saying is that once you go beyond five letters without natural pronunciation, the pool of enterprise buyers becomes extremely small.

In my own client work, I’ve never seen a company accept a 5–6 letter, non-pronounceable acronym as a brand name.

The purpose of this post is simply to offer a reference frame. I see people sharing six-letter acronyms, forcing abbreviations, and calling them “brandable,” when in real enterprise discussions they rarely make it past the first conversation.

These are not rules, they’re boundaries I’ve observed from actual client decisions.

If someone has real counterexamples from enterprise use, I’d genuinely like to see them.