MrRhee

FLO.TV

If you haven't heard by now, FLO.TV ran ads during the Superbowl.
Aside from it being an interesting product, at the end of the commercials FLO.TV was prominently displayed. While great exposure for .TV, it doesn't mean that anyone's portfolio will gain in value or that there needs to be a .TV gold rush.

What interests me is that "FLO TV" has been saying for awhile that they'd have ads in the Superbowl, but I wondered and have been waiting to see whether or not they would choose to promote their main url FLOTV.com or FLO.TV as they own both but widely promote FloTV.com in all their press releases, and use it as their Corp site.

During the game, when you visit:
FLO.TV
it doesn't redirect you to FloTV.com (which is great) until you click on "news" or "learn more" links. There is a very comprehensive product tour that resides at the FLO.TV microsite itself. Though their main site resides at FLOTV.com, I was surprised that they chose to promote FLO.TV for their superbowl ads instead of their regular url. I can only imagine the debate going on in the marketing dept and boardroom to make that final decision to go with .TV and invest millions to do it.

Perhaps we'll see if FLO.TV ends up being the consumer/user portal and FLOTV.com remains the B2B site.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/638551-tv-tv-com-ads-during-superbowl.html

TV.com

But it was also interesting to see CBS finally aggressively promote one of their best domain assets that they acquired through the CNET acquisition: TV.com

I use that site quite often and have been wondering when they were going to show it off to the world since I have only seen it heavily promoted on the footers of the CBS website network. It is truly a category killer along with all the other domains they acquired from the CNET portfolio: Search.com, News.com, Radio.com, Kids.com, Browser.com, Shopper.com, etc...

anon22339

flo.tv is owned by Qualcomm per Whois.

__________________
SR22 Insurance | Low Cost Insurance | Car Insurance | SR22 California | Pizza Delivery

MrRhee

yes, FLO TV is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated. Part of their MediaFlo division:
MediaFLO

snoop

I don't think it means much really, the extension is "out there", it has been that way for 10 years, especially for tv related advertising. This won't really help take up or the predicament of the .tv domain market in my view.

Jimbojimbo

I didn't realise this. Thanks once again for sharing this info, your commitment to the cause of .TV runs deep.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

For clarification purposes could you advise on what years in the past decade there was a .Tv name (actually a series of .Tv names) shown on the superbowl ads?

As for this not really helping? Would you use the same argument with Bob Parsons and his GoDaddy ads in the same time frame?

GoDadddy seem to spend six months preparing the world for their superbowl ads and then the next six months telling us about their successful superbowl ads just in case we missed them.

Is their model similarly flawed? What about all those corporations with large and understanding PR and marketing departments who similarly see the superbowl as a great time to get their message 'out there'.

With your new found PR and marketing knowledge, backed up by your, no doubt, accurate information, you could make a fortune.



Of course, you wouldn't just be saying these things because you want the world to only ever hear the now dated mantra of '.com is the only true one'.





In reality, the use of any .Tv name being used in advertising has a massive impact. The fact they are now used routinely in the UK and many parts of Europe is one reason why the market in .TV in this part of the world is generally seen as more bouyant there than in North America.

snoop

2007,

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/28496...v-another.html

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/23547...nvestment.html

The company is promoting itself, they aren't promoting the .tv domain extension. The number of people who would look at that ad and then start thinking about buying a .tv domain is very limited.

Jimbojimbo

I thought you had information that stretched back over the past ten years to give you such insight.


..and yet, when questioned about your facts (and therefore the factors affecting your decision-making) all you can come up with is a single Budweiser ad from a couple of years ago.

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551
What happened to it being that way for '10 years'?


You ALWAYS ask for facts when people suggest things are going well, but can NEVER provide facts to back up your hair-brained 'TV is dead' mantra.

You've moaned about .TV for years and yet it's still here, getting bigger in the real-world every day. Like that forum of yours, is it not time you considered retirement of such defunct thinking?

freedom30

Alas and alack, the 20th century is always a vivid goal for our dear Don Quixote, and he will never relinquish that quest, brave and feeble crusader that he has become, then as now and ever!

__________________
.TV - go ahead...turn it on!

DomainSales.TV

Argos

[QUOTE=snoop

... The company is promoting itself, they aren't promoting the .tv domain extension. The number of people who would look at that ad and then start thinking about buying a .tv domain is very limited.[/QUOTE]

As for stating the obvious yes the company is promoting his brand 'Flo.tv', whether more people will start thinking about buying or not a .tv domain isn't the issue, this is indeed great exposure for a .tv end-user in such event, and yes if there is a guess it would be that -looking at that ad- their competitors and other marks, sponsors and so on, move as well to the extension. Why your castrating comment when MrRhee initially mentioned that this info as such doesn't mean our portfolios will gain in value or because of that there will be a .TV gold rush ? Let us enjoy this simple sweety fact without putting your bitter grain of salt on it ! I may usually accept your two-feet-on-the-ground remarks as everyone has the right to a different opinion and your contributions sometimes may strike the balance, but please please avoid this unecessary input !

snoop

Why? It didn't happen last time with bud.tv, how is it different this time around?

Clearly others in this thread some are running a different argument,
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

"In reality, the use of any .Tv name being used in advertising has a massive impact."

Ironic that you'd say everyone has a right to a different opinion then go on to talk about "unecessary input".

Jimbojimbo

Argos - I've got to say the following line to Snoop encapsulates best all that many here think.

Yes, this is an open forum, but the reality is that it is a forum area specifically for those who are 'interested' in .TV - not have an outright and irrational hatred.





May I ask the question again. I thought you had information that stretched back over the past ten years to give you such insight (see above quote)...
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

..and yet, when questioned about your facts (and therefore the factors affecting your decision-making) all you can come up with is a single Budweiser ad from a couple of years ago.

What happened to it being that way for '10 years'?

You ALWAYS ask for facts when people suggest things are going well, but can NEVER provide facts to back up your hair-brained 'TV is dead' mantra.


Looking back through the threads over the years it is clear that while you were actively running another forum you have never fully explained WHY you are here and what your interest in .TV actually consists of.

Could you clear up, once and for all, why you devote so much time to trolling the .TV area?

snoop

Jimbo, I stated that the extension had been relatively well known for 10 years, you asked me when in the last 10 years it had been used in a superbowl ad and I told you, 2007, not sure what your point is now.

This is a forum for discussion about .tv, it isn't the place for one sided discussion, that ended nearly a year ago,

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/57770...rum-rules.html

How many times have we gone over this?

Jimbojimbo

Snoop

People can read these threads and they can see you squirming when asked to substantiate your 'facts'.

And people will query your motives for being here and pouring such unnecessary bile on .Tv for no reason whatsoever.

We can't even let domainers know that a .TV name has been used in a superbowl ad without you 'deciding' it is actually a bad thing!

equity78

Snoop let's make perfectly clear that ended april of 09 because I ended it. Bottom line the subforum was originally created for like minded individuals who were interested in the extension. I know this since I created it, and explained it to RJ like that.

Whether a place is an open forum or not still makes people wonder when some devote so much time to the same repeated rant.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

Its like a father telling his daughter over and over at every holiday that he does not approve of her husband. As a father he certainly has a right to say what he feels since its his daughter. But after she heard it the first time she does not need to hear it year after year. Especially when the son in law does not even bother the father in any way.

This thread was someone pointing out superbowl ads, by the way there was two .tv ads one for CBSCARES.tv. Just saying.

__________________
Congrats and Thank you to RJ

Protect your brand,secure your .sucks today

snoop

Not what I said at all,
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

think

Not enough controversy in this thread yet so I'll add that although they aren't currently using it, Qualcomm owns Flo.mobi also

Carlton

Good comment equity. I no longer believe its about domains as much as some underlying problem with the poster.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

Chronic attention-seeking is part of the problem. The other aspect is a fundamental lack of respect for others. I appreciate that the thread was created for people who enjoy the extension. Contrary to that purpose, compulsive dissenters flooding this thread (any thread) are satisfying themselves at other people's expense. And that is sad.

__________________
PremiumDomains.biz -> BLOG | Charlotte.US | Manhattan.mobi | NewYorkCity.biz | Detroit.US | Miami.biz | NorthCarolina.info | California.biz

finster

did bud.tv actually run during the game(s) or was it just speculated they might?

(aside- being a cannabis activist from way back i'd put bud.tv to my own and imo far better use. :> )

__________________
.

snoop

Some info here,

"The buzz that bud.tv created during the Super Bowl seems to have fizzled out as the number of visitors to the site fails to meet expectations."

Bud.tv traffic slows quickly after Super Bowl buzz - Loyalty Marketing - BizReport

"By my count, 2007 Super Bowl sponsors included (I’m sure I missed one here and there): Budweiser, Pepsi, FedEx, Toyota Tundra, Careerbuilder.com, GM, Bud.tv, King Pharmaceuticals, Wild Hogs, GoDaddy.com, HP, E*TRADE, and Doritos. "

2007 Super Bowl Commercials -- Advertising, Marketing Lessons

MrRhee

Let me tackle the Bud.TV superbowl ad now (no pun intended)

Bud dropped over $25M over the lifetime of Bud.TV to promote it. They did influence other media/ad agencies to consider .TV as a viable option. Bud.TV itself died... there's been many opinions as to why it failed.... and no one says the TLD killed it..

though most analysts have their own opinion, they ALL pinpoint 2 major reasons it failed:

#1 - access to the site was heavily monitored and controlled to keep under age users out of the site, but also created a major hurdle for their target market to access because of ongoing changes/requirements to comply with government regulations. it was a pain in the ass to use and to keep using. signing in was a nightmare, not just signing UP, but signing in.

#2 - none of the content was allowed to be shared. trapped in a silo. counter-productive and counter-intuitive. much, if not all of this, due to #1 above.

back to FLO.TV
Whether or not anyone believes that FLO.TV's ad will help the aftermarket is up to them. I never said it would.

More exposure doesn't equal more adoption.
More exposure = more awareness, period.

What matters to me is that today I could point out to people I do business with, that a .TV was advertised during the Superbowl. In their eyes, it made .TV a viable option for them to use for their own marketing and gave me more ammo to close deals. It made an impact.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

I do realize that no matter what postive light is shined onto .TV in this forum, someone will always come out and shine a negative light. People will always post things to support their point of view. It's simple... everyone has a voice... they're free to use it. If someone wants to position themselves as the anti-cheerleader, so be it, every industry & TLD has to deal with that... but if we fall into the trap of acknowledging the negativity, it will continue to pollute this forum. If it bothers you, simply ignore it and fight the urge to give in and respond.

finster

imo the fact that this ad is for a video device, one that a subscriber base will be using daily (assumoing that it actually does gain such a base - a pretty good bet) will keep the ".tv linguistic object" in lots of peoples minds, if only subliminally. snoop's right that this alone wont change the domainers market for .tv's - not very much, but it probably will make it easier to market whatever.tv for those entities looking for fresh marketing angles.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551

just remember this guys - every .tv name you buy and horde does hardly a single bit of good for the .tv extention. not that that will stop any of us. too much hording will doom .tv to .info type-status. on top of the already difficult situation with premium renewal confusion, well.... :shrug:

__________________
.

snoop

Agree,

The thing, is the, simply advertising a .tv url isn't going to have any significant effect on the extension. People won't see the ad and think "wow .tv, I should register a domain like that", well maybe some would, but not many.

This ".tv spotting" has been going on for a long time (starting a thread when someone sees a .tv advertised), it is talking point because it is not the norm, but it doesn't mean the extension is about to go "mainstream" which is what some claimed when bud.tv was advertised. Flo.tv isn't a first and history has shown the effect of this type of advertising on an extension.

That was the type of argument made in 2007, "don't listen to the negativity", look how it has fared for most of those people. It led to a major wastage of money by many .tv investors.

Jimbojimbo

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=638551
That is so 'rich' coming from you. Did you not notice what happened between 2007 and today - the world got sh@t on from a big bankers bottom...

...and yet those who invested in .TV came through a lot better off than many other sectors of the domain market AND other sectors of the more general economy.


(Can I add, I am not complaining about the recession of blaming the recession, just pointing out it happened - and its impact seemed more severe in other areas)


May I ask how your non .tv investments fared between 2007 and 2010. Were they too a 'major wastage of money'?

snoop

Between 2007-2010 what sectors of the domain market and the general economy would you say has done worse than .tv?

I would say when you look at the regular feg fees names and all the premiums as well it has done worse than anything else. We are seeing people drop premium names entirely and regular reg fee names bought at a premium as well. Then there is stuff like businesschannel.tv - sold at a 92% loss.

As you pointed out the other day 8.7% of all aftermarket purchases have been dropped and not even reregistered, and you wouldn't even disclose what the % was for premium names. A figures like that it not the norm.

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/63766...important.html

Definately down, I'd say the .com market is down about 60% from the peak, but that is nothing like what has been seen in .tv where people are just walking away from names they paid a premium price for. Whilst the domain market has crashed, most parts are at least still in tact. I do not think that could be said about the market today for .tv.

freedom30

..and thus Don Quixote, man of la Mancha, sets his lance upon the target of the heart of the blasphemous extension. A well placed lance of high expectations. Yet it fails in its mission to nullify the validity of its birthright.

A fact presents itself to counter Quixote's merciless lance. The realm of the 21st century breaks the illusory stranglehold and opens the gateway to the progress that has been made between the centuries.

...and now imagine the technological changes five years from now.

Whatever the direction, Quixote, boldly ride!

__________________
.TV - go ahead...turn it on!

DomainSales.TV