discuss 2017 and traditional TLDs - Will you change something in your portfolios?

[Brands.International]

There were millions of new gTLDs registered in 2016. It is quite reasonable to assume that money spent on new gTLDs are money which otherwise would be spent in .COM (and ccTLDs, .NET and .ORG), if there is no opportunity to invest them into new Gs. There is no information as per my best knowledge that 2017 would be any different, as new and new gTLDs are entering the market. This would inevitably mean less and less money flowing in direction of traditional TLDs.

My question to those investing mainly in .COM : What is your sincere feeling as of value and sales of your current .com porfolios? Is it increasing, or decreasing? Are you planning to change something in your holdings? There are several posts here where members are complaining that their sales has "slowed down" in 2016...so would you think it is time for change and will you incorporate some new gTLDs into your strategy, or would you prefer to hold 100% with the "king" in 2017?

 

[ZapNano]

More likely the end user will buy both .com and the newTLD; in a thinking of being safe. And maximizing their traffics. I think so

 

[Ategy]

I'll start by saying .com will still dominate for a very very long time ... HOWEVER ... lol

The huge problem .com is facing with the new TLD's coming on board is that ironically .com in many ways CANNOT compete with them ... before you laugh me out of here, hear me out ...

For 99(.99)% of businesses, they simply can't get the .com they want (or should get). Either they are way too expensive .. or too long or not marketable/memorable/etc

That's where SOME new TLD's will be able to offer a viable alternative ... essentially the (shortness + brandability/marketability + price) factors will offset the .com factor (which is HUGE as going .com also helps immensely in terms of marketability).

Because of this I see SOME newer TLD's pushing their way into the middle ground between [short but expensive .com's] and [cheap but longer .com's].

Marketing context and pricing are obviously key factors though. .club, .shop and .app I think will do well in their specific niches as there is both relative volume and financial clout behind those types of companies and start-ups.

As I've mentioned before, I really like .co as it has a very broad scope and can really fill out that void between the 2 ends of the .com spectrum (note that I'm not saying replacing).

I see .net softening as it's traditional generic "2nd choice to .com" .. yet strengthening in the "anything technology" category.

There will also be similar attrition in things like .app taking a huge chunk of momentum out of .io

For many obvious reasons and some less obvious reasons (depending on the TLDs), some of the new TLD's will be relegated to "3rd tier status" .. stuff like .xyz .cool .sexy ... please note that I'm not saying that makes them junk .. there will still be plenty of potential less serious end users for them .. but I don't think the serious companies and start-up with the $x,xxx to $xx,xxx will consider those extensions .. instead they will either stick with longer .coms .. or .. as nTLD's hit a global critical mass and general acceptance TLD's like shorter .co's could really shine .. and the better category TLD's like .app, .shop, (.blog if they rethink their pricing .. lol), .club, .net and a handful of others will all have enough demand to offer domainers and investors decent margins ...


Although .. that's just my 0.00003 bitcoins worth .. so take it for the opinion that it is!

 

[Kuffy]

As long as the .com registry doesn't do something stupid, it will remain the dominant TLD. The scarcity of names gives an air of established respectability to those who do own the names. Maybe new and vibrant tech companies can get away with new trendy names, but as they become larger and more established, then I think they will look for .coms to consolidate their positions. Obviously this is a personal opinion, and I've been wrong before.

I think xyz is the unusual newcomer, and I've started to dip my credit card into the xyz waters. Google is going to affect xyz name prices in the future now that it has abc.xyz for Alphabet.

 

[Ategy]

... The scarcity of (.com) names gives an air of established respectability to those who do own the names ...

Yes ... but the simple reason they are in demand also makes them expensive for us as domainers to pick up. I'm not saying gems aren't possible to find .. but what most people always forget in the ".com is king" debates is that while it certainly is king in terms of end prices, it's days of being more profitable for us to flip in terms of percentage may be numbered. Is it better to buy 1 .com at $3k to sell at $12k .. or 30 .co at $100 and sell them at $2500 each? There are pros and cons to each approach .. but you can't it can't just be said .com is king for domainers .. for us it has nothing to do with end sale price .. and everything to do with margins!

 

[Ategy]

Google is going to affect xyz name prices in the future now that it has abc.xyz for Alphabet.

I seriously disagree with this myth (or at least I think it's a myth .. lol). While it might help a little bit, nTLD's really need both sides of the dot to be in context .. ironically abc.xyz actually works because of the context of the alphabet (actually their company name) ... but aside from them and maybe a handful of other brands focused on letters then I don't see .xyz being relevant to many companies at all. Stuff like scrabble.xyz or spellcheck.xyz would certainly work .. but not too much else ...

 

[Kuffy]

I guess I'm getting old, but to me xyz makes more sense than most of the scribble to the right of the dot. It's almost as if xyz is trying to turn the scribble into a joke, and because of that it works as a general tld. If enough people believe this, then it will be a success, until then it's obviously a gamble.

 

[Kate]

There were millions of new gTLDs registered in 2016. It is quite reasonable to assume that money spent on new gTLDs are money which otherwise would be spent in .COM (and ccTLDs, .NET and .ORG), if there is no opportunity to invest them into new Gs.

If you are talking about domainers, yes I think new extensions have diverted investors' money.
If you are talking about end users, there are defensive registrations that wouldn't have been made if new extensions weren't in operation.

There is no information as per my best knowledge that 2017 would be any different, as new and new gTLDs are entering the market. This would inevitably mean less and less money flowing in direction of traditional TLDs.

.com and ccTLDs are continuing to outgrow new extensions.
End users and domainers are not always following the same trajectories...

My question to those investing mainly in .COM : What is your sincere feeling as of value and sales of your current .com porfolios? Is it increasing, or decreasing? Are you planning to change something in your holdings? There are several posts here where members are complaining that their sales has "slowed down" in 2016...so would you think it is time for change and will you incorporate some new gTLDs into your strategy, or would you prefer to hold 100% with the "king" in 2017?

I will continue to buy .com, but I will also buy even more ccTLDs.

There are opportunities all the time. For example the Austrian registry released short .at domains, so we've bought a few since I have experience selling LL.cctld domains. This is a once-only opportunity. I think these names are sound. I'd rather buy LL.at for which there is an established market, than new extensions nobody cares about (= high risk).

For 99(.99)% of businesses, they simply can't get the .com they want (or should get). Either they are way too expensive .. or too long or not marketable/memorable/etc

If the shortage of good .com was so dire - end users should be flocking to new extensions. They should be more popular. They are certainly not mainstream today, unlike what some people predicted (it's always interesting to review 'old' threads from a few years ago and see how opinions evolve). End users still prefer to get a longer .com, or some made-up name that isn't too great but that's the way it is.

Is it better to buy 1 .com at $3k to sell at $12k .. or 30 .co at $100 and sell them at $2500 each?

I am still finding good names on closeouts/prerelease auctions. I am not paying thousands for those, more like $25 or $69... and LLL.co are not selling for 2.5K on average. I would really like to see how you are flipping 30 LLL.co for 2.5K each.

Bargains are to be found all the time, you have to look hard, do research. Sort the wheat from the shaft, observe more around you and listen less to false prophets

 

[Brands.International]

I'll start by saying .com will still dominate for a very very long time ... HOWEVER ... lol

The huge problem .com is facing with the new TLD's coming on board is that ironically .com in many ways CANNOT compete with them ... before you laugh me out of here, hear me out ...

For 99(.99)% of businesses, they simply can't get the .com they want (or should get). Either they are way too expensive .. or too long or not marketable/memorable/etc

That's where SOME new TLD's will be able to offer a viable alternative ... essentially the (shortness + brandability/marketability + price) factors will offset the .com factor (which is HUGE as going .com also helps immensely in terms of marketability).

Because of this I see SOME newer TLD's pushing their way into the middle ground between [short but expensive .com's] and [cheap but longer .com's].

Marketing context and pricing are obviously key factors though. .club, .shop and .app I think will do well in their specific niches as there is both relative volume and financial clout behind those types of companies and start-ups.

As I've mentioned before, I really like .co as it has a very broad scope and can really fill out that void between the 2 ends of the .com spectrum (note that I'm not saying replacing).

I see .net softening as it's traditional generic "2nd choice to .com" .. yet strengthening in the "anything technology" category.

There will also be similar attrition in things like .app taking a huge chunk of momentum out of .io

For many obvious reasons and some less obvious reasons (depending on the TLDs), some of the new TLD's will be relegated to "3rd tier status" .. stuff like .xyz .cool .sexy ... please note that I'm not saying that makes them junk .. there will still be plenty of potential less serious end users for them .. but I don't think the serious companies and start-up with the $x,xxx to $xx,xxx will consider those extensions .. instead they will either stick with longer .coms .. or .. as nTLD's hit a global critical mass and general acceptance TLD's like shorter .co's could really shine .. and the better category TLD's like .app, .shop, (.blog if they rethink their pricing .. lol), .club, .net and a handful of others will all have enough demand to offer domainers and investors decent margins ...


Although .. that's just my 0.00003 bitcoins worth .. so take it for the opinion that it is!

I think this is great analysis of current development and direction, and would agree with most ideas there

 

[Brands.International]

I guess I'm getting old, but to me xyz makes more sense than most of the scribble to the right of the dot. It's almost as if xyz is trying to turn the scribble into a joke, and because of that it works as a general tld. If enough people believe this, then it will be a success, until then it's obviously a gamble.

I think registry of .xyz is doing pretty good job in terms of marketing and obviously also in terms of pricing, so there are great chances that .xyz will do well in the future. What more, it falls into category of generic new gTLDs, so it can go with almost any keyword in front of it..this also helps. The fact that google adopted abc.xyz is obviously another boost for the brand, no doubt about it!

 

[Brands.International]

If you are talking about domainers, yes I think new extensions have diverted investors' money.
If you are talking about end users, there are defensive registrations that wouldn't have been made if new extensions weren't in operation.

.com and ccTLDs are continuing to outgrow new extensions.
End users and domainers are not always following the same trajectories...

I will continue to buy .com, but I will also buy even more ccTLDs.

There are opportunities all the time. For example the Austrian registry released short .at domains, so we've bought a few since I have experience selling LL.cctld domains. This is a once-only opportunity. I think these names are sound. I'd rather buy LL.at for which there is an established market, than new extensions nobody cares about (= high risk).

If the shortage of good .com was so dire - end users should be flocking to new extensions. They should be more popular. They are certainly not mainstream today, unlike what some people predicted (it's always interesting to review 'old' threads from a few years ago and see how opinions evolve). End users still prefer to get a longer .com, or some made-up name that isn't too great but that's the way it is.

I am still finding good names on closeouts/prerelease auctions. I am not paying thousands for those, more like $25 or $69... and LLL.co are not selling for 2.5K on average. I would really like to see how you are flipping 30 LLL.co for 2.5K each.

Bargains are to be found all the time, you have to look hard, do research. Sort the wheat from the shaft, observe more around you and listen less to false prophets

Thanks @Kate, that is very appreciated!
I have also seen information about short .at domains (and some sale reports) and actually I think it might be a smart move to buy those. I would guess ccTLDs portfolios are not so affected by money directed now more and more into new gTLDs, as someone who want to buy, lets say, .fr domain is really not going to be interested in English new gTLDs (well, 95% of them are English, very few are in German and other languages). End users who are buying ccTLDs will still buy them, because most new gTLDs will not be an alternative for them.

So it seems like ccTLDs portfolios (which are made of well established ccTLDs of countries using other then English language - like .de, .at, .fr, .ch) = pretty safe there Would you say this is an correct assumption?

 

[DnFolk]

My question to those investing mainly in .COM : What is your sincere feeling as of value and sales of your current .com porfolios? Is it increasing, or decreasing? Are you planning to change something in your holdings? There are several posts here where members are complaining that their sales has "slowed down" in 2016...so would you think it is time for change and will you incorporate some new gTLDs into your strategy, or would you prefer to hold 100% with the "king" in 2017?

Sales are static, neither increasing or decreasing as such, of course trying to increase it, so change strategy is to focus more on quality rather than quantity, and yes i would like to invest in some new gTLDS ( i have invested a lot in XYZ ) 'but other than that i am apprehensive from where to start, there are so many and all good ones gone. Unlike com new Gtlds can work only if keywords are damn strong, also there is less reseller market for it so that is what has stopped me from investing in new gtlds except xyz.

 

[Kate]

So it seems like ccTLDs portfolios (which are made of well established ccTLDs of countries using other then English language - like .de, .at, .fr, .ch) = pretty safe there Would you say this is an correct assumption?

Yes, ccTLDs aren't really affected by new extensions. Even geoTLDs like .berlin .paris .london etc are not challengers to the national extensions.

 

[bmugford]

My sales and inquires (primarily .COM) are as high or higher than ever. I don't see any less end user demand.

Brad

 

[Ategy]

If the shortage of good .com was so dire - end users should be flocking to new extensions. They should be more popular. They are certainly not mainstream today, unlike what some people predicted (it's always interesting to review 'old' threads from a few years ago and see how opinions evolve). End users still prefer to get a longer .com, or some made-up name that isn't too great but that's the way it is.

Hey hey ... lol .. didn't I start my post by saying ".com will still dominate for a very very long time"?

I spend many many hours a week plowing through lists .. I'll be the first to say relatively good .com's can be found at good prices (I personally grab them regularly myself .. lol) .. but nowhere near as easily or as good as in other gTLD's.

This is a thread about 2017 .. and it really has nothing to do with "shortage" .. as the true gauge of a gTLD survival/success is the end user balancing the various variables (domain length, cost, marketability, availability, etc) .. and as more small/medium businesses come online it will push momentum towards more awareness and gTLD acceptance .. as this happens the "marketing" part of the gTLD variable calculation will increase .. in turn making them more valuable to new end users. Certainly NOT more valuable than the equivalent .com .. but we aren't comparing ____.com vs ____.gTLD .. the actual comparison is ____________________.com vs _____.gTLD

The ONLY reason I'm into .co is because I've seen them used locally in tv ads by small/medium businesses combined by the fact LLL.co have gone liquid (I haven't actually bought any ironically, I'm just seeing that liquidity as one of many factors to gauge the specific gTLD).

At some point there will be a general population tipping point of CERTAIN gTLD acceptance into relative mainstream. At that point the total value calculation I mentioned above for gTLDs will close the gap relative to .com. It's really important to state that I'm not at all saying .co or anything will be more valuable than .com .. but the perceived value difference will decrease .. so for example if a short single-key-term.co domain today is worth 5% of the same .com .. then next year it will likely be 6-7% .. by 2020 maybe even 10-15% .. while at the same time the .com will also likely go up, but that same .co will have the .com growth in value plus the relative to .com growth.

 

[Ategy]

I am still finding good names on closeouts/prerelease auctions. I am not paying thousands for those, more like $25 or $69... and LLL.co are not selling for 2.5K on average. I would really like to see how you are flipping 30 LLL.co for 2.5K each.

Bargains are to be found all the time, you have to look hard, do research. Sort the wheat from the shaft, observe more around you and listen less to false prophets

Yup .. as I said .. I completely agree .. I find them too. note that I never said LLL.co sell for 2.5k .. I said LLL.co are liquid at around $2-300 I think. At that price I'm thinking the end user price is what's supposed to be the typical price for those small/medium businesses of around 2-3k (end-user). Whereas today those companies are opting for A_______B_____C___.com, in the next year or two I think those companies will be much more likely to go ABC.co as they see other businesses using .co (or whatever the relavant TLD). It already has started in a limited buy growing fashion. As time goes I think the value proposition I mentioned above will push a higher proportion towards ABC.TLD ... maybe not more than .com .. but certainly relatively more than today .. and as time goes by that gap will close a little more each year.

Even now before that critical-mass tipping-point, there are significant TLD sales in $x,xxx and even $xx,xxx ranges .. they aren't .com and you won't get as many sales requests .. but when your margins are significantly more then you don't need to sell as many.

FYI .. I'm actually grabbing singleword.co's and short-key-term.co's in addition to longer-but-decent.com's.

It's really an important part of my equation to buy non-.com's at low prices and to only grab the cream-of-the-crop keywords/terms in the right gTLDs .. for those I *AM* the prophet .. lol. But I understand your concerns, as conversely I see the large majority of gTLD domainers buying the wrong domains .. but if you look at 99% of .com drop lists you'll see just as much if not more garbage domains .. bargains and garbage aren't unique to any extension .. as you said .. you just need to put in the work of slogging through all the lists and not overpaying!

 

[Ategy]

My sales and inquires (primarily .COM) are as high or higher than ever. I don't see any less end user demand.

I don't think even the strongest supporters of non-.com's will ever disagree with this statement. But the fact .com is getting stronger has no co-relation to potential opportunities in gTLD's. There are opportunities in both .. and you have to be careful buying in both. Remember that the more .com's that are sold .. the more attractive the short punchy alternatives will be! I'm actually buying both .com and non-.com and see the value in both (obviously my non-.com's purchases need to be infinitely better/cheaper left of dot than my .com's)!

 

[HotKey]

We (ngTLD investors) are light-years ahead of the average enduser market. Way too early write off dot-coms IMO. There is no reason to think that ngTLD's and COM and ccTLD's can't co-exist for years to come. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

But what I love about gTLD's is the personality and diversity it has given the web. It's like injecting steroids into your brand.

 

[garptrader]

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on new TLDs the last few years which without them might have gone into traditional extensions. Even before 2014 domain investors have generally been receptive to new extensions but find that end users are not as enthusiastic about paying four and five figures for them as they thought might be the case. New TLD releases will usually result in some highly publicized sales to spur additional registrations but most investors get stuck holding the bag. I would rather hold keyword .Net or keyword .TV (for keywords where video content makes sense) over any new TLD. However the aftermarket for the other non- .Com's (pre-new TLD) has clearly taken a hit from all the new releases. I would have to imagine that every new tld release gives low-budget developers and small businesses more reason not to pay a premium for an already existing alternative extension. Why pay $5000 for keyword.xyz when I can just add another word or an extra letter or choose one of hundreds of alternative extensions and pay reg fee?

The general public places far less value on domain names as brands than domain investors wish they would. Until there is a seismic shift in end user willingness to pay for domains rather than come up with inferior alternatives there is little reason to be buying more and more domains in any extension.

I will end 2016 with .Net holdings about ten percent of what I once held and .TV holdings about a third. Even .Com holdings have been cut sharply from just a few years ago. My portfolio is the smallest it has been since 2007. I have no plans to buy any new TLDs in the next year. I will continue to look for unique opportunities in .Com but it is unlikely I will consider acquiring more than a few domains in other extensions.