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

 

[mad409]

Yes I also said it's old news. I wouldn't have bothered with it but your comment about "no proof" made me reply.

Look I said I know about the NS issue but that's been a long time ago, NO one has any actual proof of how may were added to accounts and that's a fact. Period...

 

[bluebox]

I have plenty of debate left, not argument. XYZ and TOP are just smarter at marketing than the others

Destroying the value of your own extension by making it spammer/scammer friendly is hardly smart.

 

[dordomai]

Look I said I know about the NS issue but that's been a long time ago, NO one has any actual proof of how may were added to accounts and that's a fact. Period...

some member posted all .xyz nameservers from the zone and the number that were netsol nameservers. It was a huge number. Maybe you can find the thread.

Netsol is otherwise not so popular so most of these must have been stuffed.

 

[Bram C.]

Look I said I know about the NS issue but that's been a long time ago, NO one has any actual proof of how may were added to accounts and that's a fact. Period...

See, and you're still replying to this old news. For someone saying it's old news you sure make a lot of comments about it

 

[mad409]

Destroying the value of your own extension by making it spammer/scammer friendly is hardly smart.

Yes, I say that every day as I delete 15 - 20 .com spam emails in my inbox!

 

[mad409]

See, and you're still replying to this old news. For someone saying it's old news you sure make a lot of comments about it

I'm just replying to you, got something to ad?

 

[dordomai]

Yes, I say that every day as I delete 15 - 20 .com spam emails in my inbox!

probably because the spam filters block nGTLDs by default already

 

[Bram C.]

I'm just replying to you, got something to ad?

No I'm good

 

[mad409]

probably because the spam filters block nGTLDs by default already

Won't be good for your new .uni venture then.

 

[dordomai]

Won't be good for your new .uni venture then.

we add billions of domains a day we don't need to be supported by email providers.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

It's not a question of weather or not new gTLDs will have a future (they have already started catching on). The question is how long will the process take and how steep will the incline be? Do you have a big enough war chest or enough cash flow to sit this out for a few years?

I have both but try to shift covering the cost of my portfolio towards cash flow (i.e. selling domains without touching the substance of my portfolio).

I've always said that new gTLDs are a middle to long term investments to me and a commodity in the short term to finance my portfolio.

Thanks,
Brandon

 

[mad409]

It's not a question of weather or not new gTLDs will have a future (they have already started catching on). The question is how long will the process take and how steep will the incline be? Do you have a big enough war chest or enough cash flow to sit this out for a few years?

I have both but try to shift covering the cost of my portfolio towards cash flow (i.e. selling domains without touching the substance of my portfolio).

I've always said that new gTLDs are a middle to long term investments to me and a commodity in the short term to finance my portfolio.

Thanks,
Brandon

Well said..

 

[mad409]

we add billions of domains a day we don't need to be supported by email providers.

Well again since you quoted me I have no clue what you're talking about. You add billions of domains to what, your .uni site?

And billions of domains daily?

 

[HotKey]

You're bang on, brother. nGTLD=.com v2.0.

 

[Canadian]

Why are these haters spending so much valuable time on new gTLD discussions
Do they feel insecure and threatened ?
Do they need support from other old-fashioned domainers who are scared to diversify their portfolio ?

 

[Atta]

Indeed new gTLDs are getting popular among the companies and have very strong future. Many new startups are launching using gTLDs. Those, who still think gTLDs are useless, are either ignorant or own very large portfolio of random brandable .coms (which are useless now IMHO).

 

[bmugford]

Indeed new gTLDs are getting popular among the companies and have very strong future. Many new startups are launching using gTLDs. Those, who still think gTLDs are useless, are either ignorant or own very large portfolio of random brandable .coms (which are useless now IMHO).

I find it amusing how many new GTLD proponents have recent sign up dates, yet act as if they are some expert on the domain market. Also, some people are constantly attacking .COM and .COM owners as if they are the problem.

Sorry, but sales talk and bullshit walks. The vast majority of all sales both in total dollars and volume is .COM. That is the reality.

Will that change in the future? Maybe.

Or, it could just be wishful thinking by domainers who think they struck gold, when in reality they are the ones being sold picks and shovels while the registries make the real money.

Brad

 

[jmcc]

some member posted all .xyz nameservers from the zone and the number that were netsol nameservers. It was a huge number. Maybe you can find the thread.

Netsol is otherwise not so popular so most of these must have been stuffed.

Netsol's nameservers dropped most of those domain name when they came up for renewal. However a small percentage did renew. Freebies and discounted registrations have lower renewal rates (often around 5% for the freebies) than full priced registrations. The theory is that the registry grows its registration base and the registrar makes money on the renewals and by upselling the registrant at the time of the freebie/discount offer.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Kate]

Indeed new gTLDs are getting popular among the companies and have very strong future. Many new startups are launching using gTLDs.

I am sure that many legitimate companies are using new extensions, just like many are using .biz or .co. But how many are household names ? For me: none.
This is precisely why new extensions have always failed: they are not embraced by major corporations. So they suffer from a lack of credibility.
What worries me is not domainers badmouthing new extensions - this is just background noise, it is the end users who are shunning them - but it's not like we didn't TELL YOU SO.
It's not the fault of domainers if they are failing to get traction. Without domainers, the new extensions would be almost unnoticed. In fact domainers are early adopters. But there is more interest from speculators than real end users, this is what is wrong and why the gTLD program is a big joke.

Those, who still think gTLDs are useless, are either ignorant or own very large portfolio of random brandable .coms (which are useless now IMHO).

I don't think I am ignorant, because I read a lot and I watch the action. Why learn from my own mistakes when I can learn from other people's at no cost ?
I am not just a domainer, I am a business end user too. I would personally not use new extensions for a real life business. And I am sure that many peddlers of new extensions wouldn't either. Those who do, get my respect. The others, who don't believe in their own merchandise, maybe should think hard about their motivations.

Do they need support from other old-fashioned domainers who are scared to diversify their portfolio ?

Everybody agrees that diversification is good, even though you can do well in .com alone. But you can still diversify niches.

What I don't believe in, is the idea of diversifying in crap. If your portfolio is 100% new extensions but you own 40 different strings, you have diversification. But it's not healthy. Personally I prefer .com and mature ccTLDs, new extensions are strictly speculation or lottery for me.
It's not like no good deals can be found in .com anymore and you have to take huge chances in oddball extensions. Not at all.

 

[jmcc]

probably because the spam filters block nGTLDs by default already

They don't. A lot of the spam problems originate with discounted registration TLDs. The more expensive new gTLDs have lower spam rates.

Regards...jmcc

 

[RU]

most of "old" domainers invest in new gTLDs as well. just saying

 

[168]

you make the mistake of thinking numbers don't lie. Let's look at this in more detail.

1.First of all 10-20 years ago the internet was still in fairly early stages. People didn't register as many domains as today.

2. Who is registering these and why? It turns out that over 50% of these are regs from speculators while much less than 50% of .com are from domainers. .xyz alone has 6 million regs, 3 million of these were given away to domainers. Many of the others are protective registrations. If you look for .xyz domains indexed in Google you will see that a lot of them redirect to the .com version. They are not being used.



But only of you define outperformance as having more registration numbers which is a poor metric. The problem is that you are using metrics that don't tell us much about what is really going on.

How many of the leading websites are .com? How many are .tk? According to registration numbers for 4 .com sales and 4 developed .com websites there should be 1 .tk sale and 1 .tk website.

You can see that this metric doesn't work well in the real world. In reality we have a total of 5 .tk sales on namebio and 304k .com sales listed. We have 60k .com sales vs. 1 .tk sale.

If we look at registration numbers alone we would think .tk is a competitor of .com

If we look at the total number of sales for all extensions listed on NB we see that there have been 420k sales.

So we can clearly see that the majority of end-user sales are .com

How were sales in the past year?

There were 74k .com sales and a total of 94k sales.

20 million regs doesn't mean much when .tk alone gets more than that. If you look at namestat you see that a lot of these "successful" extensions don't grow anymore or even decline. There are massive drops happening already.

The only reason why there still is some growth in the total number is because extensions like .top and others are giving away so many domains for 40 cents.

1. You could say the same thing about New "G's". Still in early stage.
2. Most of the regs "in the early stage" of .Com were from specs too. By the way early reg costs for .Com were also much higher much like New "G's" today kinda like history repeating Yes?

Reg. numbers a poor metric ? That's the only number that counts in investing. The .commie camp loves to point out end-user stats that are bloated with stagnation, redirects, parked, landing, etc. Interesting though, it's rarely published how much inventory is still on the shelf that nobody wants not even investors. You are using metrics that don't tell us much about what is really going on. It should be a no brainer a 20 year monopoly would have end-user and sales lead for now.
Ford was a leader for many years too till Toyota and many others came along. There are several other examples across all industries.
Domains are no different. Everything on this planet has a cycle. .Com or anything else for that matter will never be an exception.
Right now, the first time in the history of domains, billions are being invested.
New "G's" are not intended to take the place of .Com or even compete! The market is growing and will continue to grow. New "G's" and CC's will attract a significant portion of the growth market that .Com cannot accommodate .Us excepted. The irony!

I stand on Alternatives as a group Outperforming .Com/.Net/.Org/.Info/.Biz/.Mobi combined going forward by any metric in a growth market backed by Billions and Major Corps that include the oldest insider.

 

[168]

I find it amusing how many new GTLD proponents have recent sign up dates, yet act as if they are some expert on the domain market. Also, some people are constantly attacking .COM and .COM owners as if they are the problem.

Sorry, but sales talk and bullsh*t walks. The vast majority of all sales both in total dollars and volume is .COM. That is the reality.

Will that change in the future? Maybe.

Or, it could just be wishful thinking by domainers who think they struck gold, when in reality they are the ones being sold picks and shovels while the registries make the real money.

Brad

Are you in the domain business or the .Com business ? IMHO people who think .Com is "it" at this time in history have a bit of narcissism to deal with while taking a few refresher courses in business growth cycles regardless of their sign-up date.

"The vast majority of all sales both in total dollars and volume is .COM"
Pretty standard outcome from a 20+ year monopoly. Keep drinkin the Kool-com

 

[168]

I am sure that many legitimate companies are using new extensions, just like many are using .biz or .co. But how many are household names ? For me: none.
This is precisely why new extensions have always failed: they are not embraced by major corporations. So they suffer from a lack of credibility.
What worries me is not domainers badmouthing new extensions - this is just background noise, it is the end users who are shunning them - but it's not like we didn't TELL YOU SO.
It's not the fault of domainers if they are failing to get traction. Without domainers, the new extensions would be almost unnoticed. In fact domainers are early adopters. But there is more interest from speculators than real end users, this is what is wrong and why the gTLD program is a big joke.

I don't think I am ignorant, because I read a lot and I watch the action. Why learn from my own mistakes when I can learn from other people's at no cost ?
I am not just a domainer, I am a business end user too. I would personally not use new extensions for a real life business. And I am sure that many peddlers of new extensions wouldn't either. Those who do, get my respect. The others, who don't believe in their own merchandise, maybe should think hard about their motivations.

Everybody agrees that diversification is good, even though you can do well in .com alone. But you can still diversify niches.

What I don't believe in, is the idea of diversifying in crap. If your portfolio is 100% new extensions but you own 40 different strings, you have diversification. But it's not healthy. Personally I prefer .com and mature ccTLDs, new extensions are strictly speculation or lottery for me.
It's not like no good deals can be found in .com anymore and you have to take huge chances in oddball extensions. Not at all.

Major Corporations are backing them and the news I read backs up my statement. Your constant bellowing is starting to suffer from lack of credibility. Even though MOST "end-users" don't even know about them ones that do are starting to choose them and the percentages are going up not down. Re-sale "losses" on .Coms are also going up. These are facts that can also be obtained "in the news"

"This is precisely why new extensions have always failed: they are not embraced by major corporations. So they suffer from a lack of credibility.
it is the end users who are shunning them - but it's not like we didn't TELL YOU SO."

"In fact domainers are early adopters. But there is more interest from speculators than real end users"

The very same Fact applies to .Com in the early days and this is your basis for New"Gs'" being a joke? Major Corps. are making the biggest mistake in history according to your logic? Have you TOLD THEM SO yet?

Please stop repeating the same BS without backing it up. We've got to be reading the same news No? At least add a disclaimer that is simply your expert opinion based on the history of a monopoly surly to repeat regardless of the growth needs of the industry. Don't bother with the end-user/sales stats obtained by monopoly. Old news. We get it. Your not into risk. That fact doesn't make everyone else ignorant. IT'S NOT LIKE WE DIDN'T TELL YOU SO.
I respect the .comie camps conservative views when it applies to investing in domains. No brainer stuff. Please show a little more respect for the opinions and preferences of others and Major Corps who are investing in New "G's"who aren't as risk adverse, prefer innovation, and question the status quo and come to completely different conclusions based on FACTS.

 

[bmugford]

Are you in the domain business or the .Com business ? IMHO people who think .Com is "it" at this time in history have a bit of narcissism to deal with while taking a few refresher courses in business growth cycles regardless of their sign-up date.

"The vast majority of all sales both in total dollars and volume is .COM"
Pretty standard outcome from a 20+ year monopoly. Keep drinkin the Kool-com

I own and have sold plenty of non .COM extensions from NET/ORG, INFO/BIZ/US, etc.
I know how hard it is to sell top tier keywords in secondary extensions for major premiums.

Yeah new gTLDs provide almost endless options for an end user looking for a cheap domain. However, that doesn't mean they are going to pay a premium for a secondary extension.

I think a lot of newer investors are greatly overestimating end user demand for domains in general.

Most new extensions have higher registration and/or renewal fees than most legacy extensions. Higher costs and lower demand is not a winning formula from an investment standpoint.

Brad