That is understandable, however this kind of business model is not sustainable. High prices may not deter some end user's but that is not true for the majority. In all likelihood both end users and domainers alike are going to be deterred by the pricing model and algorithm, which will result in low registration numbers and reduce the bottom line of the business behind .ART. A "Heads Up" doesn't really do much other than indicate to everyone in the marketplace that the whoever running .ART has decided on using a model that is more focused on "greed" as compared to long term sustainability.
The majority of end users aren't interested in the kind of keywords that Domainers are. They want their real name, their trading name and many of those are non-premium. I should know, as I've been browsing through the .art zone file daily for the past few weeks.
What are low registration numbers? There's a thread on DomainNameWire regarding .ART where Drew doesn't believe that .ART will achieve 5,000 registrations in one year. Clearly, he hadn't been studying the data which suggested at least 8,000 domains excluding General Availability and without all the major Registrars on board. With General Availability, there was a recorded 1,355 domains registered within just a few minutes of launch. We'll all know more tomorrow when the zone files are published, so appears to be a very healthy take on G.A. Day #1 and I wouldn't be surprised if the zone expands from 2.3k to 4k registrations in 24 hours. It'll certainly smash the scepticism of only 5k registrations in 12 months.
You talk about greed but my observations are that many here are middle men, resellers, taking a cut of a mark-up in pricing. I'm confused by how you define greed. Ulvi Kasimov (.ARTs founder/investor) is rumoured to have invested $25M into .ART - that's quite some investment, vision and risk on his part. I would have thought that greed is about taking than giving. He's given quite a lot and as a businessman, will expect a return on that investment.
The big failure of NGTLD's is the fact that a good portion of the businesses behind them are not focused on sustainability. Smaller NGTLD operators need to focus on registration volume and not big one time or reoccurring payouts. 10 Big businesses buying their $50k registry reserve domains will not sustain their business long term. However, 60k+ registrants paying $15-$30 a year to keep their domain registered will keep the river flowing every year and if the prices remain consistent...the amount of registrations will increase YoY and so will the profitability of the tld..
With any start-up, there's going to be a learning curve and only natural that some of those will have under-estimated their business model where don't 50% of all start-ups normally fail within 2 years? The domain industry shouldn't be any different. But will the extension and namespace have failed? Very unlikely, as they'll just get absorbed into another Registry's more successful business model. No one size fits all.
There is a inverse correlation between registration numbers and price for both regular and premium registrations i.e as registration cost goes up, the number of registrants goes down. So when I put my meme up, I really meant it...this ngtld failed before it was even in GA and others that will try and do the same thing will also fail. They must of been so proud about the "$3.5 million" premium domains they have...must think they're gonna be billionaires :D...horrible mistake. Using algorithms in this manner won't make you rich. In this case it was a waste of money, they should have spent the funds surveying artists and ASKING THEM what they consider a reasonable price point for regular/premium registrations and have them classed. Oh well, guess they just want the cash and don't actually care about the global community they represent.
Basic supply and demand. I have read quite a few threads recently to claims of nTLDs failing when they're barely out of the gates. Most of that negativity seems to stem from the fact of disgruntled Domainers not being able to register the premium names they hoped to gain at bargain basement $20-$30 prices. The reality is that the game is forever changing, therefore others need to adapt too, else you're going to be left standing. As I've already touched upon, the investors are already rich - the namespace will, over time, simply make them richer and be great business for those who not only invest their money but their precious time too and put their purchases to good use.
If you want quality domains, then yes, expect to pay 4 figures. If you're not prepared to spend 4 figures, then it's perhaps worth considering a different venture. nTLD's are not .coms, so attitudes and approach need to change. Most established artists can sell a piece of artwork for £2,000. I know that by just selling one of mine, will cover a relevant killer category keyword for that artwork so what's the problem?
In terms of survey, then as an artist, I don't have a problem with the pricing having understood .ART's approach to the marketplace, their revision in pricing structure for various phases of registrations and their pro-active approach to creating a microcosm of relevant content and early adopter partnerships, where owning a .ART domain leaves no ambiguity of what you're expecting to find.
I would write more but I'm actually trying to build two .art websites at the same time (despite it being 3am) than just sitting on them...
Megalodon.com
Which is the best price?
What non .com extensions have you sold in 2024?
Three word .COM BabyAndBeyond.com had been sold for $350 000
Domainer Twitter has been spicy this past week
Those who Outbound, how can I make life easier?
Domain on auction resolves to unknown site?!
A domain is expired three years ago but still not showing available.
NamePros Parking adds Buy Now (and much more)
HSTF.com: Seller gets questioned about value, raises price
Squadhelp is now "atom"
