.tv Coach potato & dotTV

I'm in the process of rereading Marketing Outrageously by Jon Spoelstra and he suggests that if you mimic the market leaders, you'll just add to their dominance.

The example he gives is Steve Case and AOL's marketing techiniques which pushed them past then leaders CompuServe, owned by H&R Block and Prodigy, owned by Sears, IBM and Trintex.

If they would have followed the same marketing practice, charging 39.95 for the software instead of barraging the nation with free software, they would have not made it. As a result of this marketing, both prodigy and compuserve were left behind.

Daring to think outside the box put AOL in first at that time, so I would assume that .tv is not competing with any extension at all. Thay are just a different branch of the same tree with its own particular niche.

Just a thought that one can't be afraid to push the envelope.

That is a good question.

The dot tv extension lends itself well to streaming video by virtue of what people imagine when they think about TV in general. Because of this, some people continue to opt for a dot tv name for their brand. The second half of your question hits upon the main difference between television and the Internet.

The Internet caters to any all niches and subniches while the television is limited to those niches that can attract enough ad dollars to cover the costs of producing television and provide someone with a profit at the end of the day.

Television is limited to a finite number of channels while it appears that the Internet does't have such a limitation.

A website on the Internet can cater to different niches in some ways better than the television can by allowing the target audience to interact with the brand and each other. That element of social interaction is lacking on the television. Dot TV's association with TV stops two letter after the dot because there is nothing you can't do with a dot tv name that you can't do with any other extension.

I look at things from the perspective of niches rather than channels (and maybe you are too). Take Tattoo.tv. At most, a tattoo segment might run once a week on some cable channel, but I bet there are not enough ad dollars to support such a full time channel OR there is more profitable use for that channel, which is why you will never see a channel dedicated to Tattoo enthusiasts. In the end, television can't cater to that niche in the way a hyper-focused website, like Tattoo.tv, can. It doesn't have to be dot tv either. It could be any developed website in any extension.

Great post, Allthings. Thanks.

freedom30 said:

I'm in the process of rereading Marketing Outrageously by Jon Spoelstra and he suggests that if you mimic the market leaders, you'll just add to their dominance.

The example he gives is Steve Case and AOL's marketing techiniques which pushed them past then leaders CompuServe, owned by H&R Block and Prodigy, owned by Sears, IBM and Trintex.

If they would have followed the same marketing practice, charging 39.95 for the software instead of barraging the nation with free software, they would have not made it. As a result of this marketing, both prodigy and compuserve were left behind.

Daring to think outside the box put AOL in first at that time, so I would assume that .tv is not competing with any extension at all. Thay are just a different branch of the same tree with its own particular niche.

Just a thought that one can't be afraid to push the envelope.

Click to expand...

I love Marketing Outrageously", it's one of my favorite books!

I just bought the book on Amazon..:kickass:

benzdorf said:

I just bought the book on Amazon..:kickass:

Click to expand...

Great. Let me know your opinion about it when you finish reading it!