Are .xyz and Network Solutions "Cooking the Books"?

[Ms Domainer]

*

Very interesting article at The Domains:

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/06/03/did-networksolutions-com-give-away-free-xyz-domain-names/

According to the article, when someone regs a domain at Net Sol, he/she automatically is "given" the matching .xyz. One has to opt out by going to a separate link.

Indeed, I checked a couple of The Domains samples (both crap domains in any gTLD) in both .com and .xyz, and, yes, they are owned by the same person.

But I noticed something else that's interesting: the registrant email for .xyz is under privacy, but the .com isn't.

Check for yourself:

00938625.XYZ (privacy email)
00938625.com (regular email)

03304cjp64ubzd1.xyz (privacy email)
03304cjp64ubzd1.com (regular)​

I bet that the registrant doesn't even know that the .xyz has been awarded to him/her and that renewal notices won't even go to the registrant.

It does look fishy, I'm afraid.

*

 

[jmcc]

It was an uphill battle for some time. Today, we have HP and DELL and many others who are accepted brands in the marketplace.

What you seem to miss is the million of Dollars spent in advertising each year by these brands to get to the position that they now occupy. The new gTLD registries are not spending that kind of cash and most of them seem to be engaged in some kind of "if you build it, they will register it" magical thinking.

Still, consumers started buying more and more foreign brands because they were cheaper and offered more for their money. The same thing is going to happen with the gtld's.

Using that logic, low cost non-Tier 1 ccTLDs should be massively overused. The only one that spring to mind is .TK ccTLD and that's considered a junk TLD due to it being free. Very few businesses build on .TK. However development in most countries tends to be on the .COM/.ccTLD axis and that typically occupies over 80% of that country's domain footprint.

TLDs live and die by those who develop in them and those who use them. No development (or very low development) results in a Dead Zone. The massive PPC parking problem, and over 85% of .XYZ domains are parked on PPC, acts as a deterrent to development. It is going to be hard enough for new gTLDs to gain market share but if the end-user tests out domain names and sees that almost every website is parked, then that new gTLD will be at a significant disadvantage.

Regards...jmcc

 

[William V]

i think you are basing your thoughts on your own investments in the new gtlds. you want this to be your opportunity, finally you're chance to get in on something that you can convince yourself is going to be big.

No, I based my investment in the gtld's on my interpretation of history and it's implications with regard to the potential of the new g's. No one knows what will happen in the future, we can only position ourselves using the information and tools we have available. My investment may not work out, but the logic behind the investment is sound.

 

[DU]

No, I based my investment in the gtld's on my interpretation of history and it's implications with regard to the potential of the new g's.

Your interpretation of history is to look at the successes of Japanese motorcars, cheap desktops while ignoring the complete failures of the Segway and Delorean, and Commodore and Amiga. You have to look at the full picture, not just the bits you find interesting.

You could look at Israel and determine that wars are often not lost.

 

[William V]

What you seem to miss is the million of Dollars spent in advertising each year by these brands to get to the position that they now occupy. The new gTLD registries are not spending that kind of cash and most of them seem to be engaged in some kind of "if you build it, they will register it" magical thinking.

In the examples I used, the companies competing against the entrenched brands did not have massive advertising budgets. They were relatively quite small in comparison, just like the new gtld's are much smaller than .com. What happened is that when someone bought a Japanese car, that car became an advertisement for the car company. People would see it being driven around. As more and more of them appeared on the roads, it became more acceptable. The same thing is true of the new extensions. When the big brands start using their gtld's to advertise LawnMowers.Sears or Carmera.Ebay, I think there is going to be an accelerated shift in acceptance of the new extensions. It will not happen over night, but it will happen in a few years time. Sure, many of the new gtld's are not going to advertise, but some are. I think .club is doing a superb job for example. But the biggest influence will come from end users building cool stuff on the new extensions, especially companies that own their extension.

Using that logic, low cost non-Tier 1 ccTLDs should be massively overused. The only one that spring to mind is .TK ccTLD and that's considered a junk TLD due to it being free. Very few businesses build on .TK. However development in most countries tends to be on the .COM/.ccTLD axis and that typically occupies over 80% of that country's domain footprint.

If 80% of a countries domain footprint is .com/.ccTLD, then already 20% of sites are not using the traditional extensions. The high prices of .com and .ccTLD combined with the lack of availability due to premium names that are not for sale in those extensions will push companies toward acceptance of the new gtld's. It's common sense. If you want to buy a Chevy Suburban but the dealer only has one left and wants five times the sticker price, maybe you take a chance of the Toyota 4Runner.

TLDs live and die by those who develop in them and those who use them. No development (or very low development) results in a Dead Zone. The massive PPC parking problem, and over 85% of .XYZ domains are parked on PPC, acts as a deterrent to development. It is going to be hard enough for new gTLDs to gain market share but if the end-user tests out domain names and sees that almost every website is parked, then that new gTLD will be at a significant disadvantage.

Regards...jmcc

In this we agree, end user adoption is critical to their success. I do not think most end users care about parked pages though. Try typing in premium .com names and you will find a very high percentage of them go straight to a parked page. I have been researching a new industry to sell to and all but two of the premium keywords I am targeting are parked in .com .net and .org. That said, you may be right about such a high percentage of parked pages. Time will tell.

 

[JB Lions]

A fool is by definition someone who acts unwisely. I personally think using history as a guide here is more wise than allowing the emotions of the moment to dictate investment decisions.

So you want to use history but use computer history instead of past domain history? Is that because that history isn't so good? Or the reality, the actual numbers aren't good either? 20,000 is horrible for a new generic extension. Knowing most of them will be parked, very little development, chance for the public to ever see them.

There is no logic to investing in this one. Poor ending with xyz, when there are many better alternatives out there. Low registration numbers. Soon to be over 90% of them given away for free.

 

[William V]

Your interpretation of history is to look at the successes of Japanese motorcars, cheap desktops while ignoring the complete failures of the Segway and Delorean, and Commodore and Amiga. You have to look at the full picture, not just the bits you find interesting.

You could look at Israel and determine that wars are often not lost.

These companies were not trying to gain market share from an entrenched competitor. Segway and Commodore (who owned Amiga) were both innovators introducing new products to the market. Delorean competed in a very small niche of the automotive market. They didn't make cars for mass consumption. There is little comparison here

 

[JB Lions]

They didn't make cars for mass consumption.

So you're saying .xyz is a Yugo. Price wise, I think it's going to be in the neighborhood of a .cc, where you can get great keywords for under $100.

 

[Acroplex]

You feel violated and now you are lashing out, I get it. I don't think the zombie registration promotion was a good idea for several reasons. The most important reason is because no one will dump a .com in exchange for a new gtld. So even if these freebies get renewed, there is now zero development potential for about 100,000 names. If they wanted to give away names, it would have been better to approach companies and offer them a great name for free that the company doesn't own in .com with a development agreement.

This is a management problem and will have some negative drag on the future of the extension. That said, I don't think the average end user cares or even knows about the freebie promotion. At the end of the day, I care about whether a business will think product.xyz is more desirable than a 4 figure mybestproductflorida.com. Even if 90% of companies want the .com, there is still a market for the .xyz.

IBM used to be king of the computer market. There was a saying that "No one ever got fired for buying an IBM". It was an uphill battle for some time. Today, we have HP and DELL and many others who are accepted brands in the marketplace.

In the 80's, GM had about 45% of the light auto market. That's about .com's current share of the tld market. Everyone knew that foreign cars were not as good as American brands. Still, consumers started buying more and more foreign brands because they were cheaper and offered more for their money. The same thing is going to happen with the gtld's.

A fool is by definition someone who acts unwisely. I personally think using history as a guide here is more wise than allowing the emotions of the moment to dictate investment decisions.

I don't feel violated in the least, my investment and loss in XYZ amount to zero. On the other hand, I feel sorry for those that rode and are still riding a dead horse, particularly when they were led to believe the 100k+ registrations are legit.

I believe in meaningful keyword+gTLD combinations, and in the end of the day, .XYZ means nothing other than what Negari had in mind: Generation XYZ. OK, so what exactly does this translate to? Gen.XYZ is cool, I get it, but random XYZ keywords mean absolutely nothing. The fact that some random domainer sold an XYZ for $95 strikes me as a reaffirmation of this gTLD's potential; if the 'best' keywords sell for so little, the rest are worth absolutely zero.

 

[William V]

So you want to use history but use computer history instead of past domain history? Is that because that history isn't so good? Or the reality, the actual numbers aren't good either? 20,000 is horrible for a new generic extension. Knowing most of them will be parked, very little development, chance for the public to ever see them.

There is no logic to investing in this one. Poor ending with xyz, when there are many better alternatives out there. Low registration numbers. Soon to be over 90% of them given away for free.

The domain "history" as you call it, is unsettled. The industry is just beginning. 20 years ago no one even knew what a domain name was.

Ok, you think .xyz has "horrible" numbers and you feel betrayed because so many were given away for free. Then don't buy any of them. But your negative feelings about the extension will not prevent some end users from preferring a short sensible .xyz name over a long and cumbersome .com. Investing is not about being in touch with your emotions, it's about looking at a market and trying to figure out what people are going to want in the future. I think there will be people who want an .xyz. If you don't, then buy something you think makes sense.

 

[Acroplex]

Furthermore, keep in mind that once this bubble deflates - let's set the date 1 year from now - if the registry were to fold, you'd be left with an unusable TLD having spent time and money on a brand that won't be anymore.

This is not about emotions, it's about using your brain and not touching with a 12 ft pole a gTLD that promoted itself as "hot selling" while basing these numbers on fake registrations.

 

[JB Lions]

The domain "history" as you call it, is unsettled. The industry is just beginning. 20 years ago no one even knew what a domain name was.

Ok, you think .xyz has "horrible" numbers and you feel betrayed because so many were given away for free. Then don't buy any of them. But your negative feelings about the extension will not prevent some end users from preferring a short sensible .xyz name over a long and cumbersome .com. Investing is not about being in touch with your emotions, it's about looking at a market and trying to figure out what people are going to want in the future. I think there will be people who want an .xyz. If you don't, then buy something you think makes sense.

Oh geez, you talk about looking at the market, which I and others have literally just posted about but then you don't. I have no emotions to any of these, they don't affect my life one bit. l look at numbers/reality. So tell my why a business would choose a short.xyz over a short anything else? Or a little longer .com? What's the benefit? Why don't they just get a short .cc for under $100?

 

[Acroplex]

For example, the fans of .tel defend this dead dodo of a TLD to this date, even though it was clear from the start that it was a TLD with no potential, due to its inability to use your own DNS. Defending something passionately doesn't make it good.

 

[William V]

So you're saying .xyz is a Yugo. Price wise, I think it's going to be in the neighborhood of a .cc, where you can get great keywords for under $100.

Yugo did not sell well in the US. However, in the 1995 I spent a summer in Siberia near Krasnoyarsk. The most common type of car that we saw was the "Lada" which as I recall roughly translated to the word "box". It was very similar to the Yugo that was being sold in the US at the time. It was cheap, had minimal options and was unpleasant to drive. In the US, no one wanted one of these things. In Russia where the economic situation was different, they were everywhere. I am not saying that the new g's are going to replace the existing tld's. But I do think there is a market for them.

 

[JB Lions]

Yugo did not sell well in the US. However, in the 1995 I spent a summer in Siberia near Krasnoyarsk. The most common type of car that we saw was the "Lada" which as I recall roughly translated to the word "box". It was very similar to the Yugo that was being sold in the US at the time. It was cheap, had minimal options and was unpleasant to drive. In the US, no one wanted one of these things. In Russia where the economic situation was different, they were everywhere. I am not saying that the new g's are going to replace the existing tld's. But I do think there is a market for them.

Except people who are into second rate stuff have more than just a Lada or Yugo to choose from, they will have well over 1,000 when it's all said and done.

 

[jmcc]

In the examples I used, the companies competing against the entrenched brands did not have massive advertising budgets.

They spent millions of Dollars to get their market share. The new gTLDs are hardly advertising at all outside the US (excluding the city/regional gTLDs).

They were relatively quite small in comparison, just like the new gtld's are much smaller than .com. What happened is that when someone bought a Japanese car, that car became an advertisement for the car company.

There was a price differential. With .com and most of the new gTLDs, there is a price differential and the new gTLDs are often more expensive than a .com domain.

When the big brands start using their gtld's to advertise LawnMowers.Sears or Carmera.Ebay, I think there is going to be an accelerated shift in acceptance of the new extensions.

Obviously new to the domain business then? Read what happened with Overstock tried rebranding its .com site as O.co.

It will not happen over night, but it will happen in a few years time.

Again, the history of TLDs does not support that and the general trends do not support it.

Sure, many of the new gtld's are not going to advertise, but some are.

If they don't advertise then how will the end users find out about them?

I think .club is doing a superb job for example.

One of the better new gTLDs but it is still no bigger than a small ccTLD.

But the biggest influence will come from end users building cool stuff on the new extensions, especially companies that own their extension.

Very few people have the same kind of view of TLDs and domain registrations trends that would have. This is why I see things differently to the average domainer. COInternet tried to convince people that there was serious development happening in .CO ccTLD a few years ago using numerology from a company that couldn't tell a Godaddy PPC lander redirect for undeveloped domains from an internal site redirect. I ran a web usage survey on approximately 1 million .CO websites to see if the claims were accurate. They were not. Measuring web usage and development in TLDs is a highly specialised field.

If there is little or no small business usage in a TLD, then a few high profile websites will not make any difference. Development just won't happen in that TLD. The small business websites in a TLD provide the volume and drive awareness which in turn drives development. If a TLD gets this wrong or messes it up, then it is in trouble. The .EU ccTLD is a classic example of this. Even though it has about 3.8 million registrations, development rates are as low as .BIZ gTLD. I don't consider Eurid's development "survey" to be accurate either as it is only a tiny 5000 domain survey extrapolated to apply to the whole TLD.

If 80% of a countries domain footprint is .com/.ccTLD, then already 20% of sites are not using the traditional extensions.

Not quite. A significant percentage of those other domains in the fooprint will be owned by the same registrants as the .COM/.ccTLD domains and they will often point those domains to the primary website in .COM/.ccTLD. They might also park them on PPC, put them on holding pages or not even bother setting them up in DNS. The number of unique and active websites in these non-core TLDs are lower.

The high prices of .com and .ccTLD combined with the lack of availability due to premium names that are not for sale in those extensions will push companies toward acceptance of the new gtld's.

No. The price of .com domains to the end-user is still low. The price of ccTLDs to their respective end-users is also low. In most countries with a mature domain market, the local ccTLD has overtaken .COM and .COM generally becomes a legacy TLD as most of the country's business focuses on the local ccTLD. Because the US situation is unusual (a massively overwhelming .COM footprint and a poorly promoted local ccTLD), it does not follow that the domain footprint of every country is like that of the USA.

I do not think most end users care about parked pages though.

They do.

Try typing in premium .com names and you will find a very high percentage of them go straight to a parked page.

As I said, I am not exactly an average domainer and have access to a lot more domain data including usage and development data.

I have been researching a new industry to sell to and all but two of the premium keywords I am targeting are parked in .com .net and .org.

They may be PPC parked because they get type-in traffic. That would mean that those premium keyword domains would have to be developed into websites because they would not generate the same levels of type-in traffic.

That said, you may be right about such a high percentage of parked pages.

They swamp natural development in a TLD and get the TLD a bad reputation among end-users.

Regards...jmcc

 

[JB Lions]

If they don't advertise then how will the end users find out about them?

That's a problem I raised before. These obviously need advertising. Problem is, are they even worth advertising for? Most are just too niche to get any real numbers. If/when you do advertise and if/when somebody sees it, they typically go for the obvious keywords, which are long gone/not even available after day 1. So bad user experience when they try to go register. If somebody saw an ad for .club, maybe they go for ones that would make sense with that extension. book club, health club etc. but it won't be there for them.

I think the general ones like a .web is one where you might actually get a return on that advertising. These others I think are hoping the registrars do the advertising, like GoDaddy's recent commercial talking about some of the new ones.

Would it make sense for .pink or my favorite I hope comes out .boo to spend advertising dollars? No, there's just no real market out there for them.

 

[William V]

I don't feel violated in the least, my investment and loss in XYZ amount to zero. On the other hand, I feel sorry for those that rode and are still riding a dead horse, particularly when they were led to believe the 100k+ registrations are legit.

I believe in meaningful keyword+gTLD combinations, and in the end of the day, .XYZ means nothing other than what Negari had in mind: Generation XYZ. OK, so what exactly does this translate to? Gen.XYZ is cool, I get it, but random XYZ keywords mean absolutely nothing. The fact that some random domainer sold an XYZ for $95 strikes me as a reaffirmation of this gTLD's potential; if the 'best' keywords sell for so little, the rest are worth absolutely zero.

I think Michael Berkins called this out on his blog on the second day of availability. Since the zone files were not released on the first day, I don't think many people were influenced by this. I was not. You didn't make any purchases because of the numbers either.

I agree with you that most .xyz names do not hold high values today. I bought mine because I think they have the potential to increase in value over time, not because of their current intrinsic value. That said, I would not sell any of mine for $95 or even $950 right now.

I certainly understand that you don't get the xyz thing. I'm not crazy about it but I think it has potential in comparison to some of the other offerings.

 

[jmcc]

That's a problem I raised before. These obviously need advertising. Problem is, are they even worth advertising for?

No. They offer no switching benefits to people who have already developed websites on other TLDs.

Most are just too niche to get any real numbers.

A lot of them look like domain hacks or flashbacks to Domain Tasting. Rather than being truly generic like .COM etc, the extension acts as a limiting factor.

If/when you do advertise and if/when somebody sees it, they typically go for the obvious keywords, which are long gone/not even available after day 1. So bad user experience when they try to go register. If somebody saw an ad for .club, maybe they go for ones that would make sense with that extension. book club, health club etc. but it won't be there for them.

There was a post on TheDomains.com a few months ago about a bit of theorising that some guy (can't remember his name at the moment) did about .CLUB and its appeal. I didn't agree with it because what happens with highly localised services (accountants, lawyers etc) and businesses (shops,bars, clubs etc) is that they move to the local ccTLD once it starts to take off.

I think the general ones like a .web is one where you might actually get a return on that advertising.

If it ever gets launched. I think that Radix is launching .website later this month but it might not go the way they expect.

These others I think are hoping the registrars do the advertising, like GoDaddy's recent commercial talking about some of the new ones.

Godaddy has a significant market share so it is critical to any new gTLD to be carried by Godaddy. However many new gTLDs are finding it very hard going outside the US and some of this is down to ICANN screwing up on data retention requirements that are in breach of European Union regulations. This means that some EU based registrars have problems with registering new gTLDs.

Regards...jmcc

 

[William V]

There was a price differential. With .com and most of the new gTLDs, there is a price differential and the new gTLDs are often more expensive than a .com domain.

Only the reg fee is more expensive. Try buying Hardware.com vs Hardware.xyz. The differential there will be 6 figures for sure.

Obviously new to the domain business then? Read what happened with Overstock tried rebranding its .com site as O.co.

I have been in the lead gen business for about 10 years, so my perspective is more from the development side than the domain trading side. If O.co also owned O.com, they might have been ok. Whoever made the decision to try using a .co was stupid beyond belief, especially after the Rent.net fiasco.

If they don't advertise then how will the end users find out about them?

I think a handful of popular sites on the new extensions can pave the way for all of them. Imagine if facebook.com changes to face.book, it's over. People catch on to tech trends faster today than ever before.

Very few people have the same kind of view of TLDs and domain registrations trends that would have. This is why I see things differently to the average domainer. COInternet tried to convince people that there was serious development happening in .CO ccTLD a few years ago using numerology from a company that couldn't tell a Godaddy PPC lander redirect for undeveloped domains from an internal site redirect. I ran a web usage survey on approximately 1 million .CO websites to see if the claims were accurate. They were not. Measuring web usage and development in TLDs is a highly specialised field.

If there is little or no small business usage in a TLD, then a few high profile websites will not make any difference. Development just won't happen in that TLD. The small business websites in a TLD provide the volume and drive awareness which in turn drives development. If a TLD gets this wrong or messes it up, then it is in trouble. The .EU ccTLD is a classic example of this. Even though it has about 3.8 million registrations, development rates are as low as .BIZ gTLD. I don't consider Eurid's development "survey" to be accurate either as it is only a tiny 5000 domain survey extrapolated to apply to the whole TLD.

Very interesting points. Do you have any recommendations about where I can find more information about this?

Not quite. A significant percentage of those other domains in the fooprint will be owned by the same registrants as the .COM/.ccTLD domains and they will often point those domains to the primary website in .COM/.ccTLD. They might also park them on PPC, put them on holding pages or not even bother setting them up in DNS. The number of unique and active websites in these non-core TLDs are lower.

Fair point. Still, even 5-10% of the market is a big number.

No. The price of .com domains to the end-user is still low. The price of ccTLDs to their respective end-users is also low.

I don't think many end users would agree there. For example:
Cardiology.com $550,000
Cardiology.link $9


So what do you think happens to all of the new gtld's? They all go away?

 

[Jasonn]

I think Michael Berkins called this out on his blog on the second day of availability. Since the zone files were not released on the first day, I don't think many people were influenced by this. I was not. You didn't make any purchases because of the numbers either.

I agree with you that most .xyz names do not hold high values today. I bought mine because I think they have the potential to increase in value over time, not because of their current intrinsic value. That said, I would not sell any of mine for $95 or even $950 right now.

I certainly understand that you don't get the xyz thing. I'm not crazy about it but I think it has potential in comparison to some of the other offerings.

the only reason daniel applied for .xyz is because he owns xyz.com. There is some humor in that.

 

[Jasonn]

So what do you think happens to all of the new gtld's? They all go away?

There are over 2 million .biz domains registered but i've yet to come across a site i use that is on a .biz. they'll be there...but no one will care i guess. with the sheer variety of new gtlds i'm sure there will be some established sites using them but at the end of the day, my view is that .com will still be the number one most sought after and valuable 10-20-50 years from now..assuming the internet still even uses domains in 50 years...or that there isn't something else that has come along to replace what we know as the internet.

 

[Acroplex]

That said, I would not sell any of mine for $95 or even $950 right now..

You can't get $500 so getting $950 is a bit outlandish, as are the XYZ 'registration' figures.

I'm open to new ventures and seeing the next guy succeed, but I'm completely turned off by the cooking of numbers and other such misleading practices.

 

[William V]

You can't get $500 so getting $950 is a bit outlandish, as are the XYZ 'registration' figures.

I'm open to new ventures and seeing the next guy succeed, but I'm completely turned off by the cooking of numbers and other such misleading practices.

I can't get 500$ from you for an .xyz. There are still a few billion people on the planet to sell to so I'll take my chances.

The free registrations were filtered from the stats in a matter of days from the launch. I have yet to hear of anyone who was actually harmed by this. In fact, all the hand wringing has just kept people who supposedly hate the extension talking about it all the time.

 

[William V]

There are over 2 million .biz domains registered but i've yet to come across a site i use that is on a .biz. they'll be there...but no one will care i guess. with the sheer variety of new gtlds i'm sure there will be some established sites using them but at the end of the day, my view is that .com will still be the number one most sought after and valuable 10-20-50 years from now..assuming the internet still even uses domains in 50 years...or that there isn't something else that has come along to replace what we know as the internet.

"Biz" is a word that you expect a small time, uneducated person to think is clever. I would be embarrassed to build a site with it. I prefer .horse.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

I would say that the real question here (putting aside the debate about the efficacy and desirability of .xyz) is as follows:

"Do you really want to do business with a company that builds its business model on lies, deceptions, and omissions?"

Even if I were excited about .xyz as a gTLD, this whole situation would have knocked the wind out of my enthusiasm.

Remember: if a company lies to you about its practices, it will not blink an eye at ripping you off in other areas.


*