Branding
More than two years ago, I warned about the apparent branding of GC.com as geocaching.
Geocaching and geocaching.com are not the same. The more geocaching.com is branded as geocaching, the more reliant we are upon this site.
Since then, the branding has escalated. Time and time again there are posts on the fora from folks who refer to the site as geocaching, as though there is no alternative. But more than an alternative, it is assumed that GC.com is the game in and of itself. Mr. Irish plays the pity me angle by stating that the other sites are created by the Evil Jeremy crowd. Yes, Navicache, GPS Games, and TerraCaching have all been created by folks who have had issues with Mr. Irish and Groundspeak. It would be too easy to point out that if multiple folks have the same issue with you, it may indicate the problem rests with the one and not with the group. Lord knows I have learned that myself.
But, a company cannot be expected to be loved by all and Groundspeak receives a pass here, even if it isn’t deserved.
I just do not understand the mentality of the players who rush to splash the GC.com logo everywhere. Lavarock was fond of splattering it on all his caches. Gibbstown Geocache, the ill-placed cache which was confiscated by a bomb squad for resembling a bomb, had the four-panel GC.com attached to the end of a trip wire.
Others have done similarly. I never understood it. The number of players who incorporate the GC.com logo into their avatars is also surprising. When I have asked about this previously, I used to ask if one would plaster all their stuff with a Coca~Cola or McDonald’s logo. It’s not the same thing, I am told. Somehow, players feel a connection with Groundspeak that I never did. It is as if they approach the site as though it were an open-source non-profit community rather than the for-profit business it really is.
And the corporate logo continues to be plastered everywhere.
The latest is the geocaching area of Live Journal. This seemingly benign area seems to be populated by folks either interested in participating or who have just begun. Yet, the omnipresent logo is plastered here too.
GC.com has effectively branded itself as geocaching.
Also blogged on this date . . .
- Slow Cooker Hawaiian Beef - 2008
- What is your opinion of FTF? - 2007
- Spurlock Is "Retarded" - 2006
Tags: Geocaching, GPS Games

By Bob on Mar 26, 2005
Here’s a current post.
Indeed, GC.com has effectively branded its game.
By splicingdan on Apr 30, 2005
Yup, it’s everywhere.
Any cache is a geocache. Just like every adhesive strip is a Band-Aid.
The narrow-minded people who disregard Terracaching will be forever doomed to hunt crummy caches because Jermey and his group of lackeys fail to recognize the competition. Instead of relishing in a ‘bring-it-on’ atmosphere and making the necessary improvements, they dictate what the caching community ‘wants’.
Also, not only do people freely advertise for GC.com, they have volunteers working for them. I don’t understand how anyone would volunteer their time to a for-profit company. The level of loyality I see in these people scares me - like a religious cult does.
Mopar is so far up Jeremy’s arse that he should be declared a dependent on his income taxes.
By Bob on May 1, 2005
I am not convinced TC.com is the answer, but at least it is a move away from the status quo, which is most definitely not cutting it any longer.
The volunteer system is misleading. While reviewers do volunteer their time, there is a quid pro quo: GC.com gains a lackey, the reviewer earns the backing of the company with little chance of ever being challenged. Groundspeak has inserted the reviewers as the buffer between it and its customers. Only when things are escalated, do Jeremey, Nate, etc. step in. Until then, GC.com is more than happy to let Lapaglia drive away customers, Lep to voice his opinion everywhere, and others to exert control.
When a reviewer does not play fairly (denies caches for made up rules, captures personally-identifiable information about customers and publishes it, reveals private e-mail with other customers, calls customers names, violate the site’s forum guidelines, etc.), it is permitted. The affected customer is told his charges are unreasonable.
Then they come back and complain that anyone who speaks ill of them are flawed. Classic!
By Bob on May 11, 2005
By Bob on May 15, 2005
By Bob on Jul 6, 2005
By Bob on Jul 12, 2005
Here’s another example. A local group is printing shirts and someone wants Groundspeak’s logo plastered on the back. Granted, Ron’s image is nice, but why would I pay to wear it?
I just do not understand.
By Bob on Aug 26, 2005
Oh my! I am absolutely amazed at this instance of branding.