[Okay - Ive gone over this several times - rewritting as I go so it doesn't sound wrong]
Well, I'm going to state I disagree,
The whole arguemet for "hyphens" being hard to use aurally is so old it's unbelievable.
Additionally, they can manage "colon", "slash" and "dot" as well as the double sounding of "double u"... so adding in "hyphen" isn't really a major problem, is it?
Applying Marketing ideals for a "Brand Name" is good practice, but not a necessity. Some of the most world known "names" are just that... names! CocaCola was made up by the accountant (I think), Hoover is pretty obvious, Ford is well recognised etc.
You do not need something "snappy", "flash", "sharp" or "punchy" - what you need is good advertising in the first place - the name helps somewhat, but it never hurt companies like MicroStar, MicroSoft, Thesselar and Krup etc... and those are international companies that have been going for over 10 years each... the reason being is their products/service are good, reliable and noteworthy - or they had excessively aggressive marketing and business practices.
They made their Brand, with time and effort.
I can see you point - and it isn't the point I disagree with... it is the reasoning behind it
Look at "Liquorice with a twist" - thats the company name, motiff and slogan.
look at the urls (with and without hyphens).
do you know which one people use the most and which one people remember the most?
Why? Because it is breaking it up into two smaller chunks - an item and an image.
Should it have been
(actually, I like the sound of that!).
What about the once highly thought of option of naming something for it's purpose/function. Admittedly it seems to have died out - yet was once a marketing ideal!
Basically, things change, and different situations require different things.
There was no way LWAT was going to go for anything different - no matter what was said (as I didn't want to type that name in!).
They also lacked a major marketing budget.
Yet their branding has worked.
They are level competition with their main competitor - they get a fair bit of work with no real effort and lots of repeat custom.
Just to clarify again - I'm not saying you are wrong - merely that I think it is a general approach that may not be feasible/advisable/wanted in some situations.
A Little more back on topic...
The general point seems correct though... you should know where you are going and what you want to achieve... and plan for that goal.
My suggestiosn were generic for the site and for business in general.
The majority of other points were to handle the "iamge" and how inportant it is to push that (no matter how it's named/branded etc.), the fact remains that it needs to be spoon-fed to people so often that when ever they think of ABC - they think of company XYZ.
If the company has a brand image, different to the company, try to get that in the URL... maybe haeva few DNs for the CompanyName and the SiteNAme - they don't have to be limited (LWAT have 4... w-w/o hyphen... .co.uk+.com), and have considered LWAT as well.
So cover all the bases as best you can... keep track of things,
(which I must admit I've never done, but shallsoon start
), and see what needs a nudge.