opinion A few companies that believe in the future of new gTLD's...

[000]

We hear a lot around the forums from people who see no future in the new gTLD program. They'll never catch on! is the battle cry, as if people are either incapable or unwilling to use or remember anything besides the almighty .com.

But what do the big wigs have to say?

Well, here are just a sampling of the international powerhouses that are each getting their own gTLD/s -- if that answers the question !!

Disney (.abc)
NFL (.nfl)
NBA (.nba)
MLB (.mlb)
Marriott (.marriott)
Hyatt (.hyatt)
Intel (.intel)
Visa (.visa)
FedEx (.fedex)
Netflix (.netflix)
Nike (.nike)
Lego (.lego)
Mattel (.mattel)
Best Buy (.bestbuy)
Jaguar Land Rover (.jaguar .landrover)
Fiat Chrysler (.chrysler .ferrari .fiat .jeep)
Discover (.discover)
Toyota (.toyota .lexus)
Honda (.honda)
Kia (.kia)
Citigroup (.citi)
Hitachi (.hitachi)
Xerox (.xerox)
Staples (.staples)
Gallup (.gallup)
GoDaddy (.godaddy)
Honeywell (.honeywell)
American Family Insurance (.amfam)
State Farm (.statefarm)
Progressive (.progressive)
Esurance (.esurance)
SC Johnson (.scjohnson)
Symantec (.norton .symantec)
Tiffany & Co. (.tiffany)
JCPenney (.jcp)
T.J. Maxx (.tjmaxx .tjx)
Macys (.macys)
L'Oréal (.makeup .beauty)
Microsoft (.microsoft .office .skype .windows .xbox)
etc

Do those names mean anything to you?

It would seem that many here think that these companies will never even use or advertise their fancy new URL's... that the "general public" still won't be aware of alternative URL's (gasp!!) even 5 years from now.

Say whaaa?!

How could they NOT? In the next few years, we will all be bombarded with new gTLD's from all directions, including many of the ones listed above.

If .com is still The Future, and the future of the new gTLD program is so uncertain (or doomed from the start, as many would argue), why is it that so many of the largest companies in the world are jumping aboard, rather than waiting it out from the sidelines? It's a very expensive endeavor, and it's not like anyone else is going to scoop up .NFL or .NETFLIX. Clearly, they aren't buying the whole .com is all that matters! hogwash.

Of course, many .com die-hards have spent a decade (or two!) investing solely in .com, so it is not surprising that they are slow to realize/accept what's happening. But the truth is, the tipping point will soon be upon us.

No longer will the NFL much care about Dolphins.com. They'll use Dolphins.NFL anyway.
Making a movie? There is no need to have the .com. Simply get the MovieTitle.movie.
Do you specialize in auto repair? Find a cool .repair and call it a day!
You get the idea!

It's way past time to admit that .com's are already losing value en masse. If you're still a .com die-hard, it's not too late, but the optimal time to re-evaluate your strategy has long since passed. You'll need to adapt sooner than later, or you will almost certainly go down with the ship.


Don't go down with the ship !





See more delegated strings here:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings

 

[pfj]

now I'm confused

I said I have a professional interest in the domain business and in new gTLDs. Doesn't mean I'm a domainer or that I'm PRO new gTLDs - just that I monitor what happens and have opinions!

 

[Canadian]

I have a couple of gTLDs yes. No secret there. But around 98% of my portfolio is .com.

I'm confused why a new g investor would ever post negative comments whether it's a registry sale or not. You're either on board or not but JMO...

I don't have that many gtlds. I currently have around 12-15 gTLDs I think (I need to check as I dropped some) and around 700 .coms.
Anyways I'm just posting realistic comments.

Reminds me of this outspoken Vegetarian that hijacks forums with how BAD eating meat is.
One day She's at a Foodie event and gets caught by a photographer eating meat.
Her response: "I only had a couple of bites and it was Premium Organic Chicken"

 

[RU]

Reminds me of this outspoken Vegetarian that hijacks forums with how BAD eating meat is.
One day She's at a Foodie event and gets caught by a photographer eating meat.
Her response: "I only had a couple of bites and it was Premium Organic Chicken"

 

[Bram C.]

Reminds me of this outspoken Vegetarian that hijacks forums with how BAD eating meat is.
One day She's at a Foodie event and gets caught by a photographer eating meat.
Her response: "I only had a couple of bites and it was Premium Organic Chicken"

Nobody gets caught here, I already said on several occassions that I have invested in a couple of gTLDs. Doesn't mean I can't be realistic about their current state though. Sorry if I'm not blindly worshipping them like you.

 

[Canadian]

Nobody gets caught here, I already said on several occassions that I have invested in a couple of gTLDs. Doesn't mean I can't be realistic about their current state though. Sorry if I'm not blindly worshipping them like you.

Yes Bram, You can be realistic about the "current state" of new gTLDs according to your own Blind interpretations.
Your post are mostly painting a Bad picture of new gTLDs, but meanwhile you've been investing in them. (and you're planning to buy more!)

So, regardless of Your "current state" opinion, You must see a Rosy Future for new gTLDs.

 

[wormfood]

It's called diversification..
if you only invest in one area and turn out to be wrong, you won't have anything to fall back on

 

[Bram C.]

Yes Bram, You can be realistic about the "current state" of new gTLDs according to your own Blind interpretations.
Your post are mostly painting a Bad picture of new gTLDs, but meanwhile you've been investing in them. (and you're planning to buy more!)

So, regardless of Your "current state" opinion, You must see a Rosy Future for new gTLDs.

Look, I'm realistic based on the current aftermarket or lack thereof. Sales are the only thing that matter to me and with gTLDs those are extremely hard to get for anyone (unless you are a registry). That's definitely not a blind interpretation of the current state of affairs. It's a fact that most people are losing money with gTLDs right now. Sure some are doing ok but that's the exception, not the rule.

Frankly I have no idea how you are faring with your exclusive gTLD portfolio but I truly hope you're doing great (I wish you nothing but the best, honestly). You have some really nice gTLDs imo. Sadly most domainers are not faring well with the new gTLDs.

And regardless of my few current gTLD investments (or my potential future investments) my right to have an opinion on the gTLDs (good or bad) remains. If my gTLD investments don't pan out it won't break my bank since 98% of my portfolio is .com. If they do pan out, great, I'll have some extra cash.

Look, I'm not a gTLD hater (or I wouldn't have invested in them). I believe a select few have the potential to be a serious competitor to .net and .org and in those extensions I invested some of my money in. Does that mean I see a "rosy future" for the gTLDs? No. It means I see a potential "ok" future for a few of them. Most of them will fail and a lot of them are already failing. That's just how it is, like it or not. But the current state of the gTLDs won't improve whether or not I start posting (unrealistic) positive comments about the gTLDs so I'm not sure why you are so upset each time I post my (negative) opinion.

 

[168]

Not this nonsense again. It's just new extensions, not some change in technology. And there are still skeptics on automobiles, computers etc? What are you even talking about.

Not a change in tech but an increase in the way it's used
Happy Hunting!

 

[168]

Honestly - for a lot of them, it's more about internal politics and empire buildling (or empire defending) than anything else. Or creating jobs that are secure for a few years. Most big corporates (and certainly the ones detailed here) have brand protection agencies safeguarding their IP. So the brand protection agency will have called the internal counsel saying "look, there's this thing, you need to plan for it, it's a few years away yet, but we're not sure how it will go - ring fence $250k and we can protect against it no matter how it goes." Generally speaking, a brand protection agency working for a major international corporation like this could be on a retainer of $10k+ per month - and will almost certainly have discretionary spending power of that much again.

So the agency calls up and speaks to internal counsel, who then talks to the IT guys and they go "yeah, we've heard of this, we should probably do it just in case..." The real motivation here, of course, is that the IT team can then unlock some budget/headcount for the implementation.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I honestly wonder how many people posting/responding here have ever had experience at executive level in big corporations. A $185k spend to hedge against a potential intellectual property/brand/security issue is NOTHING. Like nothing. It's tiny. I've worked with companies where individual employees (not executive level - project director level) spend that much a year in travel.

Disney reported $52.5 billion in revenue for 2015. $185k is 0.00035% of that. It's a note in a line on an excel sheet attached to an email that nobody read. The NFL did $12 billion. Marriott $14.5 billion.

These are all multi-billion dollar companies. For companies like this protecting their brand is paramount, and the costs of NOT protecting it, and something going wrong, FAR exceed the $185k they needed to pay to secure this risk. ICANN knew EXACTLY what it was doing when it rolled out this "initiative".

As a footnote to this - these same brands also spent a FORTUNE acquiring multiple domains at sunrise in relevant new gTLDs as they launched. Most of these domains will never be used. Apple has around 14,000 active domain registrations. Disney has nearly 17,000. Nearly 400 gTLDs have launched so far. Many of them had really quite high sunrise pricing - $100+ during sunrise. Assuming that major brands acquired multiple domains in new gTLDs as they launched (which they did - I know this for fact as I was monitoring the zone files as gTLDs launched) then at a conservative estimate, at the conclusion of the gTLD launch (ie when all new gTLDs currently under discussion have launched) then I can easily image that some major brands will have spent $150k+ registering their trademarks in gTLDs that they perceive as being a threat to their business.

Why? Because it's cheaper to register than to recover later: remember - you have to enforce trademarks (including cracking down on infringing domain names) or you risk losing them.

So - suddenly, the $185k is just another line on the legal department's budget.



Brand gTLDs and publicly available gTLDs are two very different creatures. I would not even call these .brand domains gTLDs - they are not generic, they are VERY specific.



See my opening response in this post. They weren't queueing up - it was hedging against a potential risk, and it was almost certainly a decision just rubber stamped by a series of disinterested lawyers/executives.



This is one of the best points that I've seen shooting down the hype over new gTLDs. .info was a disaster, as was .biz - .org is GREAT and has a very clear purpose - but as an asset class .org falls WAY behind .com



New gTLDs don't bring value - they bring confusion and uncertainty. And when people are scared and confused, they turn to things that they regard as familiar. That's human nature. So - the confusion of choice devalues the new and strengthens that familiar. That's basic human psychology.



.bmw and .landrover are already recognised and familiar brands. drive.bmw makes semantic sense. experience.landrover does too. They're not only familiar but authoritative: when you visit drive.bmw you know there is NO CHANCE that you're going to be phished, hijacked, or infected with malware. Security online is a huge and growing issue - and I think in coming years .brand TLDs will come into their own. If I'm interested in BMW cars, going to ownersforum.bmw is much safer than going to bimmerownersclub.com/forum - and maybe I can trust the people posting there a bit more, and can feel secure that they are moderated and I'm not going to be trolled and abused - another hot topic online these days.

They also give the brands room for creativity, unconstrained by the limitations of what domains are available. They don't have to worry about whether they've registered the right domains when they launch a new product - because they already own them. HTC's Vive product is a great example - they had htcvive.com but just spent money to acquire vive.com

I still think vive.com is better than vive.htc - but you see my point.



Absolutely - I do not deny that .brand TLDs will help familiarise people with these new extensions. But - as I said - when faced with the paralysis of choice, people turn to the familiar. Which means, in the short to medium term, .com still wins. These .brand TLDs will help introduce people to the idea that there are other extensions out there - but I honestly think that what we will see happen is that there will be a divide - .brand TLDs will be seen as secure, reliable and authoritative, alongside .com and (for example) .co.uk - and other ccTLDs. The other new gTLDs will be seen as flighty, unreliable and untrustworthy - the domain of spammers, chancers and fly-by-nights. When there are substantial numbers of GOOD sites living at new gTLDs and they've been there day in day out for 5 years plus then maybe people will trust new gTLDs. But who is going to build those sites? Would you build a business on a new gTLD? I wouldn't. I'd use them as keyword funnels, or domains for specific landing pages, but by their very nature, gTLDs don't lend themselves to branding - because they have an implicit association. Part of the power of .com is that it's neutral - it doesn't contextualise or otherwise comment on what is to the left of the dot. Sure, there are some others that also have this neutrality, but many have a "specific purpose" - and indeed that's the spiel of many. Think of .club, the poster child of the new gTLD revolution. If I'm an accountant, will I be looking a this? Almost certainly not. If I'm a gymnastic club, does .com still make sense? Definitely, yes.



Absolutely correct about not worrying about being scammed - but they WILL probably still have to play whack-a-mole with all sorts of domains unfortunately. Certainly where anyone is actively infringing their brand.

However, as I said earlier, I think the authority of .brand TLDs is going to be very high, and that in itself will actually make the authority of all other gTLDs weaker.



It's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of money for the types of companies we're talking about. As I said earlier - I know people working for companies like these where $185k is their personal travel budget for the year.

Look at it this way - in London's financial district, premium office space goes for about £75 per square foot. I did some work last year with a well known consumer brand who have an enormous office in a prestigious sky scraper. They had 12 conference rooms - each one must have been about 300 - 400 square feet. Each time I went in for a meeting we would be put in one of the conference rooms - and I only ever saw 3 others being used at the same time. So a lot of the time they had 8 to 10 rooms - 3000 square feet of office space - sitting unused. This was apparently very common. "Why do you have so many conference rooms?" I asked. "Well, there are a few days each year when we need ALL of them - when we are launching new campaigns, or preparing the global end of year figures, or if we have a law suit or something. It's cheaper than renting external meeting rooms, and more secure." Cost of that unused space? £250,000 per year.



They will 100% lead to greater awareness. Acceptance though, I'm not so sure. See my point above. I think this is more of a double edged sword than you appreciate. I think it's safe to safe that you have a rudimentary understanding of psychology but perhaps haven't thought this one through to its ultimate conclusion.

I think they will recognise alternate URLs - that resistance will definitely erode. Whether they will trust them and use them is anyone's guess. But MY guess is that .brand TLDs and existing incumbents (.com .co.uk .fr etc) will still hold a trust far above new gTLDs.



See, this is interesting - and pretty much reinforces the point I'm making. No-one here in the UK cares about .uk - and, in fact, most of the time they think that it's a mistake. If people see somedomain.uk they pretty much think that the .co bit has been missed out - so if they are manually typing it they will add it in, and potentially get the wrong website. This is why the .uk names HAD to be offered to existing registrants first. Furthermore (anecdotally) I know that if people google something and see somedomain.co.uk and somedomain.uk they would be more likely to click somedomain.co.uk - because it looks more trustworthy.



I think this is true - but they are generally keyword domains - london.accountant or gymnastics.club

Whether they are "investment class" domains is very different. My opinion is that they are not.



"Citation needed".

Just like .club announcing some extraordinary sounding prices early on, I am very skeptical indeed about this announcement. I think it's more likely that the names were given to the new operator for a "consideration" of $120,000 - or, in other words, no cash changed hands. But the value of the PR that they gain from this is great. And, as people have said for years, the internet is shaped by the porn industry.

You make some very good points ! However, what the .comies don't see is 1. The emerging markets for use of domains where .com is irrelevant, less relevant, higher cost
2. The new generation of users that LOL at "trust" and "Authority" (.brands excepted) instead want "relevance". The C-Suite is changing and not as beholden to the ".comm club"
3. The early and respectable adoption of alternatives by Techies ie: the io extension, World Hosting Days- WHD.Global, PayPal.Me,
Google ETC ETC Who's building theses sites ?

My Tag Line is : Don't get stuck in the .com era. Get New "G's" Copyrights 2016
Who still uses a Motorola analog brick phone?

There is no comparison in (.biz, .net, .mobi, .info,) and especially .org to the current more relevant hundreds of options available today in a market that is 3x the size and growing.
It's not likely .org was ever considered as a competitor to a for profit extension.

How is it possible end users fear, distrust, or "don't believe in" as others have suggested when "most" end users don't even know about them, or some that do are choosing to use them? Surely the examples given are "trusted" sites No?
The more familiar "end users" become with any site, this fear mongering will not prevail and registries that don't want to be labeled as "spam" will either step up or loose.
I think it's safe to say that you have a rudimentary understanding of business psychology but perhaps haven't thought this one through to its ultimate conclusion. .com may be a diamond but that doesn't devalue emeralds, rubies, and other precious stones.
They are ALL precious stones each with "investment grade" "rare" opportunities and "end user" preference.
Happy Hunting!

 

[Bram C.]

My Tag Line is : Don't get stuck in the .com era. Get New "G's" Copyrights 2016
Who still uses a Motorola analog brick phone?

.com is not using an "older" technology compared to the new gTLDs. Both are using the exact same technology.

 

[dordomai]

.com is not using an "older" technology compared to the new gTLDs. Both are using the exact same technology.

it's not a different technology, it is more companies entering the marketplace.

You make some very good points ! However, what the .comies don't see is 1. The emerging markets for use of domains where .com is irrelevant, less relevant, higher cost

1.the emerging markets are either ccTLD or .com. The ccTLD is very strong and a nGTLD has even less chance in an emerging market. because of this. They have to compete against .com .net and ccTLD. Even worse than in the US.

As for Chinese investing in nGTLDs. They don't use more nGTLDs than anyone else, probably even less they just like to place bets there.

2. The cost is actually higher for most nGTLDs and this will not change. Don't let the temporary/discount freebie promotions distract you. Verisgn can't rise their prices much that is why they are low. The nGTLDs can.

2. The new generation of users that LOL at "trust" and "Authority" (.brands excepted) instead want "relevance". The C-Suite is changing and not as beholden to the ".comm club"

This generation doesn't exist.

The reality is that most internet users(young/old) don't care about domains. They don't want to deal with technology. They don't care about "relevance" whatever that means in that context.

nGTLDs are not more relevant. Vacation.rentals is as much relevant as VacationRentals.com

They use what they know and they are happy if things are simple.
Many of them only know .com and .net/.org Anything else is just, what is this?

3. The early and respectable adoption of alternatives by Techies ie: the io extension, World Hosting Days- WHD.Global, PayPal.Me,

.info was used 10 years ago by many big brands already. Yes techies do know something about domains and they do know, understand and accept new extensions.

Problem: Most internet users aren't techies and never will be.

At the moment even the nerds aren't very interested in nGTLDs.

 

[168]

.com is not using an "older" technology compared to the new gTLDs. Both are using the exact same technology.

.com is "akin" to older technology in reverence to the "era". There is no mention of the technology behind it.
New "G's" are "akin" to new more relevant technology.

Companies that are stuck in the .com era should get the brick pun. Millennials get it when I put it next to a smart phone.
Psychologically, nobody wants to be perceived as "dated"

 

[dordomai]

Companies that are stuck in the .com era should get the brick pun. Millennials get it when I put it next to a smart phone.
Psychologically, nobody wants to be perceived as "dated"

and most companies don't want to be perceived as rebels or rule breakers.

Millennials have already learned to use .com that is what they know. Domains don't matter that much to people. We will never have society talk about a new era of domains or teenagers rebel against the .com establishment. This is only for nerds.

You need a simple, trusted and universal deafult extension that tells everyone this is a web address. .com does this. The alternatives don't

 

[mad409]

and most companies don't want to be perceived as rebels or rule breakers.

So any company that doesn't use .com is a rebel and rule breaker? Come on...

 

[dordomai]

Don't think that's what they're saying..


So any company that doesn't use .com is a rebel and rule breaker? Come on...

of course not. I was responding to the idea that every company that uses a .com will be seen as dated.

 

[mad409]

of course not. I was responding to the idea that every company that uses a .com will be seen as dated.

Well I agree with that but wasn't how I read it... Thanks for the clarification...

 

[168]

it's not a different technology, it is more companies entering the marketplace.



1.the emerging markets are either ccTLD or .com. The ccTLD is very strong and a nGTLD has even less chance in an emerging market. because of this. They have to compete against .com .net and ccTLD. Even worse than in the US.

As for Chinese investing in nGTLDs. They don't use more nGTLDs than anyone else, probably even less they just like to place bets there.

2. The cost is actually higher for most nGTLDs and this will not change. Don't let the temporary/discount freebie promotions distract you. Verisgn can't rise their prices much that is why they are low. The nGTLDs can.



This generation doesn't exist.

The reality is that most internet users(young/old) don't care about domains. They don't want to deal with technology. They don't care about "relevance" whatever that means in that context.

nGTLDs are not more relevant. Vacation.rentals is as much relevant as VacationRentals.com

They use what they know and they are happy if things are simple.
Many of them only know .com and .net/.org Anything else is just, what is this?



.info was used 10 years ago by many big brands already. Yes techies do know something about domains and they do know, understand and accept new extensions.

Problem: Most internet users aren't techies and never will be.

At the moment even the nerds aren't very interested in nGTLDs.

Great comments. Thank you.

I listed some possible emerging uses in a previous post on this thread not limited to an either or conclusion. Totally agree cc's are gaining preferred use for geo and creative definition status.

I believe China will follow with trends that develop from the West as they do now AND create their own... They are buying .club for example. One very much adaptable to the culture if approved. Agree they are speculators! with an additional incentive to stay ahead of Government policy.

Higher cost is in reference to a .com that is available at this time, at a reasonable cost that has to be explained with marketing dollars, vs a New "G" That is available at this time at reasonable cost that doesn't have to be explained via wider variety of combinations available.

No question some New "G's" have a higher reg. carry cost for now. I don't think it will be too long before survivors standardize to compete on merit and .com goes a few bucks higher putting some pressure on the bigger portfolio holders.

I respect your perspective of "this gen doesn't exist" maybe where you are however I've spent the last 10 years immersed in the new gen in several industries, companies, and educational environments and in my world they do exist. I read the same articles about the new gen not caring about technology or domains. What I have also read about relevance is being able to identify a site and it's relevant content. Travel.Agency is just as relevant as Travelagency.Com and .com isn't more relevant, authoritative or trustworthy simply because it's a .com from their perspecitve. .com is waning in it's claims of exclusive trust and authority.

Totally agree New "G's" don't have market momentum at this time nor will any one specific New "G" rival the status of .Com ever.
That being said, they do have and will continue to have a place in an expanding market of users AND uses going forward and like I said before it's absurd to compare New "G's" to .info, .biz, .org,.mobi Relevance, timing and creativity. The differences should be obvious.

 

[dordomai]

What I have also read about relevance is being able to identify a site and it's relevant content. Travel.Agency is just as relevant as Travelagency.Com and .com isn't more relevant, authoritative or trustworthy simply because it's a .com from their perspecitve. .com is waning in it's claims of exclusive trust and authority.

In theory. In practice you need to get a large part of businesses and users using it.Otherwise it's just a cheap alternative without any authority at all.

That usage isn't going to happen anytime. It's been two years and there is a general apathy towards nGTLDs.

.co could easily become the leading extension. In theory. In practice it will never be since it will never reach the critical mass that is needed.

Without critical mass they don't matter. When they don't matter they will never reach critical mass unless all businesses unite and put in collective effort and funds to make commerce switch to .whatever. That is not going to happen because there is no financial gain from doing it.

20 years too late.

 

[dordomai]

like I said before it's absurd to compare New "G's" to .info, .biz, .org,.mobi

I would say .biz and .info are better strings than 90% of the nGTLDs that are being launched today.

If .biz where launched today everyone would agree how much potential it has and that it could come after .web. It could be one of the hot extensions.

In reality .biz is not different than any other nGTLD and nGTLD investors should be buying up .biz if they believe in the future of nGTLDs.

if the nGTLDs have a bright future .biz investment is looking more promising than ever before.

 

[garptrader]

Precisely - if new TLDs are such great investments, then why have .BIZ, .Info, .CO, .TV, .ME, .Mobi and even .Net turned out to be such crappy performers for domainers. Most any domainer who has been around for a few years is generally dropping domains in these extensions because they are so hard to sell. I think I still have maybe two or three .info domains down from dozens at one point. I once had dozens of .biz and now hold zero. I once held six hundred .Net and now hold fewer than one hundred. Even the best of my .Net domains are only selling for low $XXX if that. .TV sounds like a great TLD but at close to $30 / year in renewals, any sale is consumed by renewal costs. New TLDs are for registries and newbies who have no idea they are being taken advantage of - like writing a $XXXX check to the registry for a digital lottery ticket. Domaining with a thousand TLD options and very little value placed on branding by end users is very close to gambling - odds of wining are slim.

 

[joro001]

Precisely - if new TLDs are such great investments, then why have .BIZ, .Info, .CO, .TV, .ME, .Mobi and even .Net turned out to be such crappy performers for domainers. Most any domainer who has been around for a few years is generally dropping domains in these extensions because they are so hard to sell. I think I still have maybe two or three .info domains down from dozens at one point. I once had dozens of .biz and now hold zero. I once held six hundred .Net and now hold fewer than one hundred. Even the best of my .Net domains are only selling for low $XXX if that. .TV sounds like a great TLD but at close to $30 / year in renewals, any sale is consumed by renewal costs. New TLDs are for registries and newbies who have no idea they are being taken advantage of - like writing a $XXXX check to the registry for a digital lottery ticket. Domaining with a thousand TLD options and very little value placed on branding by end users is very close to gambling - odds of wining are slim.

Completely agree with your view on other extensions and i've experienced similar poor results with non .com extensions over a sustained period. I hold over 90% .com now and in fact closer to 100% and don't plan on changing any time soon for the reasons mentioned above.

GTLD's are good for registries not for domainers in 99.9% of cases.

 

[168]

In theory. In practice you need to get a large part of businesses and users using it.Otherwise it's just a cheap alternative without any authority at all.

That usage isn't going to happen anytime. It's been two years and there is a general apathy towards nGTLDs.

.co could easily become the leading extension. In theory. In practice it will never be since it will never reach the critical mass that is needed.

Without critical mass they don't matter. When they don't matter they will never reach critical mass unless all businesses unite and put in collective effort and funds to make commerce switch to .whatever. That is not going to happen because there is no financial gain from doing it.

20 years too late.

Totally agree critical mass factor.

cc's as a group have the potential to rival .com critical mass as do New "G's" as a group. None, in either category have the potential independently like .com No doubt .com will be the leading independent for quite some time, but not necessarily the leading portion of the pie.
I don't believe any New "G" was created with the intent to replace .com, but as a group, to occupy a respectable portion of the ever growing pie.
This isn't a one on one with.com game or destroy .com game It's how much of the growing reg pie can New "G's" or cc's as groups consume? Wouldn't be proper to compare a monopoly of 30yrs to any one New "G"or specific cc . Would you compare the first 2 years of a start-up to Microsoft, Apple, IBM, today ?. Insane.


New "G" registration as a group, 2 years, more than 21 million, It took .com 15 years to reach 20 million as the only "viable choice"at the time.
I don't see this as general apathy given the general lack of awareness. Yes, Yes lots of speculation on both sides of the fence. Please save the debate of "in use" unless you can extrapolate landing pages, parked, shelved investments and any site that hasn't been updated in the last year,.com+.net redirects to social and enterprise sites and all start ups are expected to be established and profitable in 2 years or none should be trusted or all lack Authority.

Your point stands if the 21 million reg number declines. I doubt it unless the global economy collapses.
From my perspective that's 21 million .coms that didn't get new reg'd.or purchased and if 20m+ new regs per year(low estimate) remains steady over the next 5 years what percentage will be .com? 30,40 50%?. if so, how much "desirable" .com inventory is available? @ 50%, 50m+ desirable .coms? not likely. China, Europe needs inventory too. Boom.?m+ globally? Good news for values of an existing .com desirable. Your point on simplicity and .coms How many domestic buyers are going to want to deal with a Chinese registrar to purchase a desirable .com within 5 yrs?


One perception I would like to see .comies drop is the idea that New "G" backers EXPECT anyone to "SWITCH". I don't know of any one telling clients to get rid of their .com instead, promoting .com and New "G's" according to the kaufman index approx 500k businesses are started each month.If the coming generations don't care about technology or domains, then they don't care about .com either. Yes? Yet do care about cost?


From my perspective, 20 years right time in the cycle for alternatives. This industry is entering prime maturing growth stage, maybe half way to a global critical mass as a whole. Going forward your either in the domain business or your in the .com business.Nothing wrong with that . I look forward to the day when the debate is over and we come together to promote new ways to USE a domain for new and existing users. It's time to innovate!. Create! The era of low hanging fruit, .com as the only viable option is over.
Right on time.

 

[Brands.International]

Hey friends,

when discussing new gTLDS and their future, one should really understand one thing about new gTLDs which is most important imo..they are semantic oriented. Think of it as some analogue of cc TLDs...when we see .fr at the end of the name, everybody knows that there is a webpage which primarily is oriented at French users..when you see .de, we know it is most likely about German users. So cc TLDs define geo location and works very well in this.

New gTLDs define content of webpage from semantic point of view..when you see .cars, you know that most likely the webpage is connected to cars. When you see .stream, you know that there will be some live content. Etc.

This is huge change in internet, and its scope has nothing to do with past and domains like .biz, .tel, and few others which are often used as examples here of how poor new gTLDs will perform in future. Situation now is very different. As I wrote in some others discussion and will re-iterate it here, huge companies like Google and Amazon are now getting massively into area of new gTLDs, and are investing heavily (read here and here). And it is not happening that Google does not know what it is doing, that Amazon does not know what it is doing, etc. Google will be selling and managing lot of new gTLDs in near future as one can see here:
(Delegate and not Available means that they are still not in GA - General Availability)

Delegated and Available (3)
.how.soy.みんな
Delegated, not Available (39)
.ads.android.app.boo.cal.channel.chrome.dad.day.dclk.dev.docs.drive.eat.esq.fly.foo.gbiz.gle.gmail.goog.google.guge.hangout.here.ing.meme.mov.new.nexus.page.play.prod.prof.rsvp.youtube.zip.グーグル.谷歌
Contracts Signed (4)
.map.moto.phd.search
Not Signed (2)
.kid.tour
In Contention (9)
.corp.cpa.home.inc.llc.llp.mail.music.web

and Amazon is in the same route :

Delegated, not Available (47)
.audible.author.aws.book.bot.buy.call.circle.coupon.deal.fast.fire.got.hot.imdb.jot.joy.kindle.like.moi.now.pay.pin.prime.read.room.safe.save.secure.silk.smile.spot.talk.tushu.wanggou.yamaxun.you.zappos.zero.クラウド.ストア.セール.ファッション.ポイント.家電.書籍.食品
Contracts Signed (2)
.free.wow
Not Signed (2)
.song.tunes
In Contention (4)
.kids.mail.music.通販

New gTLDS are huge opportunity and huge equalizers in my opinion..I say it because you do not need hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to get high quality names, like one needs in .com. You can be student on limited budget and still do well when you are serious about it. It is not quantity, but quality of the names which counts. When you select carefully, you can still find high quality names, for as low as 20-30 USD, so with some search effort, everybody who is interested and committed to that can get, lets say, 10 good names for USD 300. This is starting to change now. as lot of registries started to price good names with high renewals, but it is still possible.

Of course, trade dynamic here is totally different then in .com..renewals are different, the pool of comparable data is still only growing, everything is on its beginning..this makes many results unpredictable. But it is this unpredictability which can give in few years huge ROI on cleverly made investments. IMO when one invests in new gTLDs, only very good names are worth to invest in. They are also not suitable for quick flipping at the moment, as lot of new extension are less then 1 year in GA, and market is just starting developing for them. So if someone has domaining strategy which is to buy and to flip quickly to earn few bucks (btw, I have nothing against it) then new gTLDs are not really suitable at the moment. For new gTLDs, one need to be able to select them carefully so there are great names with standard renewals (no crazy premiums), to do a lot of work and be prepared (and have finances) to hold them longer, then the date of first renewal, if necessary. So it is more kind of "collecting" approach with lot of work afterwards oriented to future sales. Some of the people here were very lucky to register some really great names, so I wish great sales to all of them

 

[JB Lions]

New gTLDs define content of webpage from semantic point of view..when you see .cars, you know that most likely the webpage is connected to cars. When you see .stream, you know that there will be some live content. Etc.

This is huge change in internet,

Not really. You didn't know what Shoes.com or Hotels.com might be about? Or BobsBikes.com or BuyYogaMats.com?

And .cars only has 388 regs, there is also .car available. So for enduser are you going to buy both? If not, worried about leaks?

Companies that are stuck in the .com era should get the brick pun. Millennials get it when I put it next to a smart phone.
Psychologically, nobody wants to be perceived as "dated"

You've missed a lot of what startups are using posts. Like low single digit new gtlds. And it's not seen as dated, it's something the public knows.

Here's 1 post where I went thru 3 weeks, 0 for 228 - https://www.namepros.com/threads/ca...s-digital-presence.949084/page-2#post-5551197

Your thoughts on this just don't match reality.

Shimmy touched on this earlier in the thread

lets be real all the threads like this and blogs posts like this are started because someone invested in new gTLD's and can't stand that they have not caught on, and wish and pray upon a star that other domainers throw money at them so they rise in value, so their investments stop being worthless. There is no other reason to constant moan and pretend other domainers are losing out.

 

[168]

Precisely - if new TLDs are such great investments, then why have .BIZ, .Info, .CO, .TV, .ME, .Mobi and even .Net turned out to be such crappy performers for domainers. Most any domainer who has been around for a few years is generally dropping domains in these extensions because they are so hard to sell. I think I still have maybe two or three .info domains down from dozens at one point. I once had dozens of .biz and now hold zero. I once held six hundred .Net and now hold fewer than one hundred. Even the best of my .Net domains are only selling for low $XXX if that. .TV sounds like a great TLD but at close to $30 / year in renewals, any sale is consumed by renewal costs. New TLDs are for registries and newbies who have no idea they are being taken advantage of - like writing a $XXXX check to the registry for a digital lottery ticket. Domaining with a thousand TLD options and very little value placed on branding by end users is very close to gambling - odds of wining are slim.

As dordomai pointed out, the critical mass factor. The only "viable" options marketed as such for the last 30 years hasn't reached critical mass. Won't be long before it does. Then what? Market the only viable option left overs as better than anything else just because it's attached to .com/.net? Timing is always a factor for expansion. 140m regd .com+.net How much "unused" preferred inventory is out there? any guesses ? 174m are not .com or .net As a group alternatives HAVE OUTPERFORMED .com,.net combined. Does anyone really think 174m registrations are just waiting for .com to become available? The New "G's" are a much better option to .biz, .info, .mobi and introduced long before any possible void in inventory. personally never liked .biz, .info is a lot like .org or .us (Not very appealing), and .mobi may or may not have done better to at least wait until there was an established Mobile market. (I don't think so though)