DU, while I respect your opinion, I respectfully disagree.
.TV had a pricing policy up until March of 2010, which discouraged domain name investors and end users alike by charging high annual renewal fees on names which were considered premium by Verisign. While video was very popular (even way back then) the .TV extension certainly was not.
In March 2010, the .TV extension was transformed when the premium renewal fees were dropped on all domain names registered after 19 March 2010. Premium domain names registered before this date maintained their premium renewal fee status. I believe that maintaining premium renewal fees on domains registered before March 2010 was not a well thought out decision. In my opinion, it's not a good idea to penalize your longstanding customers for believing in you and investing in your product early on. The grandfathered premium renewal fees added considerable confusion to begin with.
Perhaps I'm not in the loop but I have not seen a massive growth of the .TV extension since March 10. What I have seen - a number of previously high annual renewal domains picked up by a very small set of investors (not end users). I could name about 5 or so of the big names but I think we all have an appreciation of who they are. I think ultimately that concentration is more damaging than any pricing. I will never apologize for saying that domain investors are a pain in the ass of end users... but I say the same thing about car dealers, health insurance and many other things (I've been told I need to lighten up
)
If someone can show me a definitive shift in the end user market that correlates to the pricing I would love to see it. What have I seen myself from what limited vantage point I have? There is a growth in the media business, there is a growth in companies that are investing time in media content that have used .TV with different degrees of success. I believe that any end user growth has actually come from actual growth in potential need and not a pricing model. Most of the .TV users I come across are on secondary quality names I don't believe they paid more than reg fee for. Some are using names that I and I am sure many others dropped.
I don't know the overall numbers of registrations in the gTLD space - I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to find out. I don't think it's relevant to domaining in general. What I do have is again limited to my view - a number of names that I was interested in (for various reasons) averaged in price between $300-$1000 a year and were all taken. I have said from the beginning that the gTLD is not an investment space that I think people should play in; however, I think there's reasonable hope that someone could make a go of it if they approached it wisely as an end user (with, of course, some risk that it doesn't catch on). Berkens has invested in a number of .condos at $500 / year and those are ones that I don't see value in because I don't see condos that are sold or leased in a manner that would benefit regardless of whether $500 is a drop in the bucket for condo owners. I can question his logic but he'll either make out or lose - it's his gamble to make but it's an example where the premium pricing model was not enough of a hindrance to even an INVESTOR. This is not even an end user.
There are definite premiums I've seen go in the .media (which I think is the one gTLD that has a potential for interfering with .TV) because many companies that are using .TV are really media companies with a .TV component. They're not what I would call a part of that .TV channel view which exists. I see .TV with a large low end user segment (YouTube etc.), as a complement to a business that is not media (where they host their equivalent of YouTube / Video content) and that's a large potential user base and growing, and of course TV production outfits who probably pay the most... and then finally media companies. Many of the top keywords in .media I know sold with a premium. I looked at some .consulting / .services with the same keywords and those also sold with premium.
Don't get me wrong, I really like .TV still (i used to hate it)... and I think it still has great potential but the only thing premium renewals does is up the risk for domain investors, or, provide clear pricing guidance to end users. What it does do to investors, and I think what makes them really get edgy is that when a great name sits unregistered at $500 + $400/yr it really means that your great name may not be worth more than $5000 after all ( that would be 10 years investment and be tax deductible cost in most cases).
Since the pricing transformation in March 2010, .TV has continued to grow in popularity. Domain investors and end users alike seemed to find this new pricing model far more sensible then the previous policy. Longstanding customers who were stuck paying premium renewal fees found their names were less desirable in the marketplace, among investors and end users alike. Many of the owners of pre March 2010 premium .TVs, with premium renewal fees, both investors and end users, let their domain names drop.
Now, here we are with Verisign, reimplementing a policy which had already proven itself to decrease the marketability of the domain names which it affects. It's taken an already confusing pricing policy and made it even more so.
But people did invest in those names
even with the associated risk and cost. I don't know why they chose to drop the names - maybe after years they just realized the investment was not worth while. Let's face facts, any business not covering their renewals were just unsuccessful.
Paying $1000 to hold was never going to work long term for investors with cheaper alternatives.. TV.COM are always there for those who want it.
Also, a decent web developer for someone will be making
conservatively $70K a year - a domain renewal of up to $5000 should be coverable - that's not even renting a small office. Failure to hold - it's a failure. Most of the drops I saw were a lot of the same people.
What did happen in my opinion? The repricing put massive downward pressure on names - all of a sudden other people held premium names at $35 a year! That hurts when you don't have a real sense of purpose behind the ownership. You don't have a goal, you don't have a plan, your holding something that is competing with others paying less. You have to be affected by this - it shouldn't have changed your initial valuation but clearly it did for most old investors. This even fails to consider the people that dropped/recaught their own names... or dropped and paid those who got the backorders in at the relatively cheap reservation price of $50. if Pheenix, Hexonet, Name, Snapnames were all catching .TVs it would have been a very different landscape.
I find that a bit cynical DU. I don't believe that you know enough about me to draw that conclusion.
I drew my conclusion from your exact words in a thread! The only thing I got wrong was the price. At $19.99 you stated "I've decided to put off this purchase"
https://www.namepros.com/threads/looks-like-tv-registration-fees-just-went-up.829422/
Perhaps I shouldn't have pointed this out because it makes things personal which wasn't really the intention. It's just that you are common among domainers. I see people all the time looking desperately for a coupon to register a name for $5 instead of $11. If that $6 is making that much of a difference, perhaps the name isn't that great. These are NEVER going to be the people paying $300 /yr, $1000 /yr for a name because they don't have a clear business plan or purpose for their purchase like an end user does. It's just a buy and flip, rinse and repeat. You can drop a $1 name, dropping a $xxx investment is much much harder. Ask some of those old legacy .TVers (not sure if you were one).
I'm not sure how you arrived at a figure of around $1,000 to register St*.tv? if St*.tv were available to be hand registered. I expect it would be priced higher and with an premium renewal fee to boot! Let's imagine it were priced at $2,500 to register with a $1,500/yr renewal fee. Over 10 years that would be $17,500. I can assure you that end users are making forward looking projections and taking premium renewal fees into account.
We have it priced at $12,888. Standard renewal fee, financing is available
If it was available to be registered, current pricing would indicate that it would be about $1000 with a normal renewal. I do apologize for picking a name that is yours - I have redacted (I picked it because it is in fact one of the name I really like). Over 10 years this would cost someone about $1500 on current value.
You have it priced at $12,888 which is over that period considerably more - and yet, I actually think fairly reasonable all things considered.
You could throw in financing, you say....how about $1000 down and $700 a year interest only loan financing at roughly 6%?
All this is FAR less confusing than just having the price listed at $2,500 year with $1,500 yr renewal
Thank you for your opinions DU. While we don't seem to see eye to eye on this, I respect your opinion.
I agree that we disagree! - I think part of it is because I don't approach these issues with quite as much of a domainer bias so I don't have the inherent need to see investing as a legitimate and sometimes lucrative venture. I don't believe it's wrong to have that bias - there's much to dislike about it - but I certainly don't begrudge you your views, your opinions.. and I respect that you have far more experience in your field than I. It doesn't mean much (or anything) but I have a better opinion of you than you might read into these posts if you take them somehow personally. I regret specific references for that reason.
It's no different than banking - when reviewing how good a loan is, my opinion is far different than my bank - we both might be right but I'm pretty sure that me getting the best deal is not really top of their agenda
