I've been meaning to write a bot that randomly posts the Always Sunny in Philadelphia quote "Because of the implication.." every ten minutes. It might get gummed up a bit with RIP or self-harm threads but I am certain after enough time it would be net karma positive.
I can't think of a worse name for SEO purposes. You'd have to fight through a well loved and well known space telescope, the astronomer it was named after, and Hubble contact lenses, which has raised ~74MM.
If a customer is looking for you specifically, they will find you (e.g. "hubble data" as stated above). If they are looking for a "data quality monitor" then the SEO will need to reflect that. The name is largely irrelevant at that point, it's merely a moniker.
In the grand scheme of problems a new company has, this is so trivially minor that I can't fathom this having any tangible effect on the success of a company. It's one thing if there's another data warehousing company called "hubble", but that's not the case you're making.
Hubble data brings up, as I would expect, data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Not one of the first page of results points to anything else but HSTS information.
I don't know who's advising you on SEO, but you will not ever outrank STSCI, NASA, ESA, AWS Open Data's HSTS archive, The Planetary Society, the National Academy of Sciences, or the ESO on "hubble data" as long as Hubble is still what people think of when they hear Hubble. The telescope and related sites/agencies/organizations have a 22 year head start building a relevant link profile in Google. And if you did, Google would get suspicious.
Hubble is fine as a name if you pick the right keywords to target in your marketing, but "Hubble data" is never going to show a link to something that isn't at least tangentially related to the telescope.
You're getting carried away with the example "hubble data." The point is that people will modify their search terms until they find the company they're looking for. If they don't know the company they're looking for then they will search by use case (eg, "detect data drift"), in which case the search results for the company name don't matter.
Problem solved. People are smart enough to modify their search if the initial results are about telescopes and not data pipelines.
One of my clients had a similar name to a global pizza chain. It hasn't been an issue at all, besides having to hear the same pizza puns over and over.
Can someone explain why the revenue sharing model is broken on Spotify? A lot of bluecheck indie bands complain about their meager $28 monthly checks. I even saw a performative tweet from a label the other day: https://twitter.com/DonGiovanniRecs/status/12865225202213847...
Let's say I run a bookstore. 70% of my revenue goes to pay workers. A works 32 hours, B works 5 hours, and C works 3 hours.
Is it not fair to give A 80% of the pay pool, since she worked 80% of the hours?
Finally, terrestrial pop radio, independent college radio, and ham radioesque bedroom experimentalists are all on the same platform, the swim lanes have been erased. Everything is flattened, everything is discoverable, yet the sobering truth that few people are streaming their work elicits attacks on Spotify from bands and marginal artists. How is their contempt justified?
If you're running a brick and mortar book store, payroll would unlikely be 70%. Payroll would be your highest cost but it should be 30% on the high end.
If we want to try and analyze this, we should analyze what music distribution was like prior to digital. My guess is that for most artist who went through traditional publishing and distribution, they only received 10-20% per album sale. That seems high too.
I should have been clearer, I used 70% of revenue because that is what Spotify gives to artists. Of course, software can do that as it scale infinitely, retail cannot. I can't tell if 70% is generous or not -- many independent artists think it isn't.
I hope this isn't off topic. I've been interested in perusing Usenet groups from the 80s like rec.music -- I swear ten years ago this was possible. I can't figure out how to do it now. Did the massive load of binaries kill off archival efforts? I can't find a search engine for Usenet anywhere. I'm just interested in plan text conversations.
