QUAD DOMAINS
Established Member
- Impact
- 502
We’ve all heard the “.com will always be #1” viewpoint. There are investors who consider the .com version of a domain name to be the “ultimate” upgrade. Fortune 500 companies that brand with .com domains are used as the poster-child justification for why no other extension will EVER have a chance. Anyone who challenges the mere idea that “.com is king” stands to be scorned into oblivion. Mostly by folks who’ve made a decent living leveraging, and bolstering, the .com value-construct. However, it’s only fair, and in many cases reasonable, that a reign be placed under the microscope every so often. Especially where renewals are applicable. After all, benefits don’t always age gracefully.
In a world where many people believe a king’s rule pales in comparison to a God’s power, it’s worth pondering what the metaphorical God would be in comparison to the king some investors believe is .com. If the answer can only have a centralized origin, one would have to say company-specific ICANN TLDs. (Ex: .google, .apple etc.) Considering Fortune 500 companies are used to justify .com’s royalty, it only makes sense they’d justify the royalty of their own TLDs. With two royals, which might a company favor? Probably their own. It’s difficult to make the case for why a Fortune 500 company would prioritize the .com over their own TLD. It just doesn’t seem ideal if branding is their focus.
The discussion about company-branded ICANN TLDs doesn’t receive nearly as much attention as it deserves. Especially at a time when decentralized TLDs take a lot of heat for merely existing. There are surely folks who are aware company-branded ICANN TLDs have been in the works for some time now. Companies opting to lead with the leveraging and promotion of their own TLD will ultimately help shift the paradigm of what constitutes the better domain name branding option. Sure, some investors speculate about the headache that might come with training the public to remember the TLD. However, with billions of marketing dollars, and a thirst for controlling narratives, most Fortune 500 companies will embrace the task.
Everything stated brings us to the need for an objective discussion about the past, present and future benefits of the .com extension. (Branding and otherwise.) With robust advancements in technology, blockchain names commanding attention, domain-utility being a focus and internet end-user demographics evolving, it’s fair to ask what .com brings to the table other than age, familiarity and what many would consider a cult-like following. This question isn’t about stirring the hornet’s nest though. It’s about getting a grip on whether .com maximalism is relative to a sincere belief the extension has evolved in a way that’s relevant to not only ourselves; but to generations that’ll undoubtedly see the world and web through a completely different lens.
Share your constructive thoughts in the comments.
In a world where many people believe a king’s rule pales in comparison to a God’s power, it’s worth pondering what the metaphorical God would be in comparison to the king some investors believe is .com. If the answer can only have a centralized origin, one would have to say company-specific ICANN TLDs. (Ex: .google, .apple etc.) Considering Fortune 500 companies are used to justify .com’s royalty, it only makes sense they’d justify the royalty of their own TLDs. With two royals, which might a company favor? Probably their own. It’s difficult to make the case for why a Fortune 500 company would prioritize the .com over their own TLD. It just doesn’t seem ideal if branding is their focus.
The discussion about company-branded ICANN TLDs doesn’t receive nearly as much attention as it deserves. Especially at a time when decentralized TLDs take a lot of heat for merely existing. There are surely folks who are aware company-branded ICANN TLDs have been in the works for some time now. Companies opting to lead with the leveraging and promotion of their own TLD will ultimately help shift the paradigm of what constitutes the better domain name branding option. Sure, some investors speculate about the headache that might come with training the public to remember the TLD. However, with billions of marketing dollars, and a thirst for controlling narratives, most Fortune 500 companies will embrace the task.
Everything stated brings us to the need for an objective discussion about the past, present and future benefits of the .com extension. (Branding and otherwise.) With robust advancements in technology, blockchain names commanding attention, domain-utility being a focus and internet end-user demographics evolving, it’s fair to ask what .com brings to the table other than age, familiarity and what many would consider a cult-like following. This question isn’t about stirring the hornet’s nest though. It’s about getting a grip on whether .com maximalism is relative to a sincere belief the extension has evolved in a way that’s relevant to not only ourselves; but to generations that’ll undoubtedly see the world and web through a completely different lens.
Share your constructive thoughts in the comments.
Last edited: