I can’t tell you how many times a client comes to us after their previous webmaster has ticked them off, died, disappeared, or moved to Siberia.  In about 90% of these cases, the domain name is registered in the former webmaster’s name and the client doesn’t know how to get control of it again.

In the vast majority of these cases, the original webmaster wasn’t trying to be malicious.  We can usually contact the registrar, who then somehow manages to contact the former webmaster, who then releases the domain.  In other cases, it isn’t so easy.

Recently, someone came to us when his webmaster became horribly ill.  He felt bad for the man, but his business had to keep moving, so he contacted us.  He had the password for his hosting account, but had no idea how to access his domain.  The domain was in the former webmaster’s name.  The former webmaster was in a coma and (needless to say) not answering his emails.  We had no way of getting control of the domain for our client.  So, we moved his website to our hosting servers under a new domain name, and set up a 301 (permanent) redirect to the new domain with the intent of re-registering the old domain when it expired two months later.

The old webmaster eventually died, and the domain was ceased by the registrar, who eventually registered it under a sister company.  Now, the 301 redirect we set up was gone, and the client lost any links he had to the old domain.  His traffic plummeted because of this.  What’s worse, anytime someone emails him at that old domain name, the registrar (under their sister company) collects the email addresses and sells them to spammers.

So, it’s fine to have your webmaster handle the set-up of your domain name, but INSIST that they make sure that your name or your company’s name is listed as the “registrant”.  This will indicate to the registrar that you own the domain.  You can still list your webmaster as the “technical contact” so they receive all the information and access they need to service your website. Internet law has not quite kept up with the growth of the internet, but legally, these days, the name under Registrant is the domain name owner.

The logo for the 2012 olympics in London was revealed the other day.  The brand was developed at a U.S. equivalent cost of nearly $800,000.  According to London 2012 organizing chairman, Sebastian Coe,

“This is the vision at the very heart of our brand.”

 Already, an online petition for a new logo has been started and gained over 40,000 virtual signatures in the first 2 days.  One british citizen was upset that the “0″ looks too much like Australia.  Most simply called it “rubbish”.  I certainly agree.  I wonder where the money went.  Were there focus groups?  Were people asked what image they get when they think of the olympics and London?  Did they respond with “Shards of glass?” 

More than likely this mediocrity is the result of something that’s pretty common: Too many cooks in the kitchen.  I’m certain the olympic brand probably has to go through some kind of board of directors made up of a group of self-important people who each want to press their own agenda.  In projects like this, the end result is often some sort of compromise.

Compromise can be good in things like marriage and contract negotiations, but it’s seldom a good thing in design.  Usually you end up with elements from multiple designs that all good, but very different.  The result is often bad design.  I’m extremely confident that given $800,000, we could come up with a logo that kicks the pants off this one.  I’m also pretty confident that the firm they hired already did…it just wasn’t chosen.