STATE OF THE NEW G'S

kriss05 said:

Of course they are not.

"One should listen to "quiet" forum posts reporting ngtld sales here and there instead of following "loud" Mike Mann's posts".

Click to expand...

Oh I've read where he can sell domains like, Isoldmydogbecausehehatesme.com for 15K but not sure who verify s them..

What I posted has been verified...

Couple others confirmed.

Simple.tax - $7,500.00
Prop.bet - $6,500.00

Maybe he is that good to sell them, I won't be surprised - BuyDomains knew everything about what .com end user really needs

I mean that there were so many ngtld sales reported, and many more which were not. IMO it should have made everyone thinking...What do I believe better: Mike Mann saying ngtlds are dead or bunch of ngtld sales reports.

kriss05 said:

What do I believe better: Mike Mann saying ngtlds are dead or bunch of ngtld sales reports.

Click to expand...

Got ya, personally trying to think a bit further in to the future myself..

Internet.Domains said:

Not sure about that, but let's see about this year's auction as it will represent the current "STATE OF THE NEW G'S"[/QUAll the new g namescon auction is going to tell us is the current state of the new g reseller market.

Click to expand...

mad409 said:

best.creditcard was a recent reported sale at $10,900.00!

Even at a $250.00 or so renewal it still brought a nice price..

New G's are not dead...

Click to expand...

But you have to consider probability of a sale before you deduce that $10,900 is a good sale. I'm going to argue that the person who bought this for $250 a year and sold for $10,900, actually had a negative expectation overall and therefore made a bad investment. There are some factors that could change this however, such as their ability as a salesperson or developer. Therefore, this isn't an attack on the previous registrant, more an observation that the average domainer should expect to lose in this scenario.

When the renewal is $250 and the chances of a domain selling in any given year are around 2%, you can expect to have sunk $12,500 (renewals) in to this name before reasonably expecting to sell it to an end user. The reason New g's suck isn't that end users don't want them or that they're destined for absolute failure (because nobody knows yet). They suck (from a domainers point of view) because they're not investor friendly. The renewals are so high, they leave a negative expectation for domainers. The only way to counter this is if prices in turn went up significantly. Sadly, the new g market has been flooded with inventory, so it's more likely prices are going down or will stay the same. There's certainly no reason to think they'll go up to the degree needed to make new g's a good hold.

New g's aren't dead by any means but the ones with big renewals aren't good investments.

(found this thread by Kate, Sept 23,2016

Hello,

A while ago I stumbled on that page:
Why these 50+ businesses dumped their .com for a new top level domain

It features 50+ end users who switched from a GTLD (not always from .com).
I thought it would be nice to visit them since it's been well over a year, and find out how they are doing now.

At first I though about automating the test but I would miss some details, so I decided to check the domains manually. I visited the old URL and the new.
This is a cursory look but hopefully it is accurate.

Then for each domain I assigned a score among 3 possibilities:
green (all good): the new domain is still in operation
orange (good with warnings): the new domain is still in operation but implementation is partial
red (fail): they ditched the new domain, or rolled back
Here is the chart below. Sorry for pasting an image and not text.
I think the results are rather positive. Most end users seem to be sticking to their new homes. But there have been rollbacks too.
Even Barclays still indulges in a bit of .co.uk nostalgia

Enjoy

capture.png
Kate, Sep 23, 2016

The opinions expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
168


Kate,

Your link goes here: blog.europeandomaincentre.com/best-new-tld/

These 87 sites dropped their .com for a smarter new TLD (New data)

JULY 6, 2015 CHRISTOPHER HOFMAN LAURSEN

out of the 50 sites numbered 26% do not resolve.
out of the 118 sites mentioned 13 do not resolve.
(Many of the numbered sites also give additional examples)
I checked every site for active business activity-design
Not all examples say what they switched from but most were either .com, .org, or country code
The most popular switch was from country code to city code.
Cheers

@Wannabean

I agree renewals of new G's are not for the average Joe, high renewals in many cases I get that and have several myself.

But with that being said I would have registered this one at this rate, no problem. Many wouldn't, I understand but different strokes for different folks and many do pay off. $200 to $250 isn't that bad for me but I normally don't go higher than that.

Congrats to the seller...

best.creditcard, one of the better longtails and I would price it at 30-50k due to a very long list of potential buyers.

Renewals will come down eventually. I have had some quoted lower at renewal time without asking/none have gone higher and I have also transferred for better rates.
I have saved as much as 110yr transfering on the high end renewals.
@ 250, I look at it like this x10yrs. 2500 Is the domain worth at least that in today's market ? I think so. I hope the seller didn't
use a broker @ 30%. It was purchased just before gen avail and I would assume a decent up charge at that time. the good thing way back then ( 2 yrs ago ) the up charge was equal to the yearly reg fee.
so, no broker 10k net broker 6730 net Great sale!
Thanks for listing,
Happy Hunting!

168 said:

best.creditcard, one of the better longtails and I would price it at 30-50k due to a very long list of potential buyers.

Renewals will come down eventually. I have had some quoted lower at renewal time without asking/none have gone higher and I have also transferred for better rates.
I have saved as much as 110yr transfering on the high end renewals.
@ 250, I look at it like this x10yrs. 2500 Is the domain worth at least that in today's market ? I think so. I hope the seller didn't
use a broker @ 30%. It was purchased just before gen avail and I would assume a decent up charge at that time. the good thing way back then ( 2 yrs ago ) the up charge was equal to the yearly reg fee.
so, no broker 10k net broker 6730 net Great sale!
Thanks for listing,
Happy Hunting!

Click to expand...

Lower renewal rates?...What extension, registry and registrar?

Internet.Domains said:

Lower renewal rates?...What extension, registry and registrar?

Click to expand...

Godaddy/Uniregistry
Godaddy discount club- beats uni most of the time in the lower range
I always ask for better pricing sometimes I get a bone
Uni for reg fees over 200 -nearly 50% less most of the time on higher end regs
some are in the 35-50 range save about 20-30 %
I also get quantity pricing at uni I believe that's why the discounts are higher
always check with both before the buy 1 of them always has a sale when the other doesn't
Both have provided great service

Most of the time the extensions aren't nearly as important as the domain as a whole
I have several different extensions at both because of the big differences but the main
3L , 3n, ones I have saved on @ uni are .tech, .video, .media
Uni beats GD on 2n
Sometimes the registrars offer discounts or better pricing too. Porkbun has .design @ 35 GD 69, Uni @50 for renewals
Here's an example.without my discounts or premium reg .green @ uni 76.88/ @gd 99.99
I would get an additional discount @ both but better @ uni in this case.
Big bucks can be saved by keepin your eyes on these guys !
Happy Hunting

Travel. Agency sold for $3000 at the Namescon auction. It sold for $9999 several months ago. That is a loss of more than $7000 dollars after commission. This was the best New G in the auction in my opinion and is an indicator of tough times ahead for the New G's....

Given the high-profile nature of the Namescon auction, one could ask what happened to the bidders for Travel.Agency from last year? Why was there was not more participation and more aggressive bidding activity if new Gs are really gaining traction? Perhaps one explanation would be the large number of domains at auction. Bidders were bidding on many other domains - new TLDs and perhaps .COM as well.

Here is a comparison 2016 vs. 2017...Numbers don't lie...https://www.namepros.com/threads/lets-compare-2016-vs-2017-new-gs.997280/

Comparable sales are important. It is not appropriate to compare 25 shorts to 5 shorts
16 up to three character domains to 2.

Also, 2016 total domains sold 92, total $ 1,495,400
2017 total domains sold 111, total $ 1,483,650
Lower quality overall one could assume.

New "G"s,
2016,
there were(11) 1-2 L/N domains
(6) 3 L/N
(8) 5 L
25 total

2017,
there were (1) 1-2 L/N domains
(1) 3 L/N
(2) 4 L
(1) 5 L
5 total

Travel.Agency - big mistake, no reserve. I wonder if the previous bidders on flippa were even contacted. Who would hire a "broker" to take a domain to an "auction" that didn't contact previous bidders?

I am sooo glad I didn't participate this year. Hope it gets better with Godaddy next year.

Cheers

168 said:

Also, 2016 total domains sold 92, total $ 1,495,400
2017 total domains sold 111, total $ 1,483,650

Click to expand...

In 2016: 92 domains sold for a total of $ 1,495,400 is an average of $16,254 per sold domain.
In 2017: 111 domains sold for a total of $ 1,483,650 is an average of $13,366 per sold domain.

So yes this shows that the average sales price of all sold domains on Namescon is 18% lower compared to last year. It's clear however that the gTLDs greatly "helped" to take that average down. The average gTLD sales price on Namescon is down with a whopping 76% compared to last year.

In 2016:
32 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $10,162 USD.

In 2017:
13 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $2,454 USD.

Conclusion: Average selling price of new gTLDs on NamesCon 2017: --> 76% lower compared to 2016.

If the gTLDs would have performed the same as last year (sold for $7,708 more on average) then NamesCon would have had an additional $100,204 USD in sales (and then the total sales amount of all domains in that case would actually have been higher compared to 2016).

168 said:

Travel.Agency - big mistake, no reserve. I wonder if the previous bidders on flippa were even contacted. Who would hire a "broker" to take a domain to an "auction" that didn't contact previous bidders?

Click to expand...

I'm sure they were contacted. I listed a domain on namescon as well and I was obligated to send all my previous leads on that domain to Monty so they could market the domain to those leads as well. I don't see why it should be different with travel.agency. I'm confident all old leads got contacted, it seems there was simply little interest in this gTLD domain (and most other gTLD domains) compared to 2016.

travel.agency is very (too) generic, end users could use brand name + .travel instead.
The expensive renewal fees are not a strong selling point either.

the hype is getting boring... investors now looking elsewhere for the next big thing.

Gs failed. workplace.fb.com developed - work.place does not resolve

Bram C. said:

In 2016: 92 domains sold for a total of $ 1,495,400 is an average of $16,254 per sold domain.
In 2017: 111 domains sold for a total of $ 1,483,650 is an average of $13,366 per sold domain.

So yes this shows that the average sales price of all sold domains on Namescon is 18% lower compared to last year. It's clear however that the gTLDs greatly "helped" to take that average down. The average gTLD sales price on Namescon is down with a whopping 76% compared to last year.

In 2016:
32 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $10,162 USD.

In 2017:
13 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $2,454 USD.

Conclusion: Average selling price of new gTLDs on NamesCon 2017: --> 76% lower compared to 2016.

If the gTLDs would have performed the same as last year (sold for $7,708 more on average) then NamesCon would have had an additional $100,204 USD in sales (and then the total sales amount of all domains in that case would actually have been higher compared to 2016).



I'm sure they were contacted. I listed a domain on namescon as well and I was obligated to send all my previous leads on that domain to Monty so they could market the domain to those leads as well. I don't see why it should be different with travel.agency. I'm confident all old leads got contacted, it seems there was simply little interest in this gTLD domain (and most other gTLD domains) compared to 2016.

Click to expand...

I think your missing the bigger point of the number of 5C or less was significantly different.
The rest of the number crunching is great to have for all to evaluate.
Total sales volume and number of domains sold IMHO also speaks to quality of listings.
Thanks for your input
Happy Hunting

Kate said:

travel.agency is very (too) generic, end users could use brand name + .travel instead.
The expensive renewal fees are not a strong selling point either.

Click to expand...

travel.Agency could very well be a killer platform site. The beauty of the "generic" status is this, leisure, business, medical, student, etc.
It has the potential to address several broad verticals.
Happy Hunting

dordomai said:

the hype is getting boring... investors now looking elsewhere for the next big thing.

Gs failed. workplace.fb.com developed - work.place does not resolve

Click to expand...

Facebook.design resolves. You might even like it
Cheers

dordomai said:

the hype is getting boring... investors now looking elsewhere for the next big thing.

Gs failed. workplace.fb.com developed - work.place does not resolve

Click to expand...

Comments like this are getting boring. Investors aren't looking what's next, they doing the current big thing.

G's are right where they should be. Work.place doesn't resolve? Who gives a crap. It's a huge name, just the fact that it exists is enough to put a smile on my face.

Bram C. said:

Agreed. So let's all stop talking about .com shall we? (at least in this thread)

Click to expand...

Wannabean said:

he's just fighting his corner. To be expected reall


Likely cost around that to register.

Click to expand...

Maybe....maybe not I have solution.city and server.city both at non premium renewals, depends if the registrar reserves dropped premiums with premium renewals or let's them be priced for general availability. That's a big factor because some registrars will not retain dropped premiums, giving the guy snapping it up after the drop a much higher potential ROI and a more economical holding cost. Sure you can speak generally about renewals but when your looking for value it gets a lot more complicated as many factors come into play. NGTLD registrars like MMX are also now implementing reduced premium pricing and a one time only reg fee, so prices are going down and will continue to go down as things begin to get more competitive.

Internet.Domains said:

Lower renewal rates?...What extension, registry and registrar?

Click to expand...

Alpnames has low renewals on a bunch of ngtlds.

dordomai said:

the hype is getting boring... investors now looking elsewhere for the next big thing.

Gs failed. workplace.fb.com developed - work.place does not resolve

Click to expand...

Your basing your conclusion off one domain not resolving???? Come on man I thought you were better than this. Also did workplace.fb.com exist before they purchased work.place?

Internet.Domains said:

Travel. Agency sold for $3000 at the Namescon auction. It sold for $9999 several months ago. That is a loss of more than $7000 dollars after commission. This was the best New G in the auction in my opinion and is an indicator of tough times ahead for the New G's....

Click to expand...

It indicates a poor selling strategy more than indicates what will happen in the future. When pressed with the notion of no reserve by NC auction staff that investor should have held firm and if they didn't get their way they should have removed the name from NC. Take bad gambles like that and you will pay. it's not like that auction had stellar ngtlds to begin with, I'm sure much better names were submitted and the investors who owned them refused to agree with having no reserve.

Bram C. said:

In 2016: 92 domains sold for a total of $ 1,495,400 is an average of $16,254 per sold domain.
In 2017: 111 domains sold for a total of $ 1,483,650 is an average of $13,366 per sold domain.

So yes this shows that the average sales price of all sold domains on Namescon is 18% lower compared to last year. It's clear however that the gTLDs greatly "helped" to take that average down. The average gTLD sales price on Namescon is down with a whopping 76% compared to last year.

In 2016:
32 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $10,162 USD.

In 2017:
13 gTLDs were sold. Average selling price: $2,454 USD.

Conclusion: Average selling price of new gTLDs on NamesCon 2017: --> 76% lower compared to 2016.

If the gTLDs would have performed the same as last year (sold for $7,708 more on average) then NamesCon would have had an additional $100,204 USD in sales (and then the total sales amount of all domains in that case would actually have been higher compared to 2016).



I'm sure they were contacted. I listed a domain on namescon as well and I was obligated to send all my previous leads on that domain to Monty so they could market the domain to those leads as well. I don't see why it should be different with travel.agency. I'm confident all old leads got contacted, it seems there was simply little interest in this gTLD domain (and most other gTLD domains) compared to 2016.

Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't be as confident as u pu are regarding leads being contacted. I had a couple names listed and then taken down due to no interest.. however when I asked if they were taking them off permanently this was their response:

"Yes Sorry. there has been no interest, no bids, no inquiries. You also have not sent me any inquiries or email offers for it which means its just not in demand yet."

Well... I sent them an inquiry contact when they asked the first time. I guess it got overlooked.