BringLove.com for $3,595 or Bring.Love for $30,000

[JB Lions]

You're a business, you have this choice:

BringLove.com for $3,595

or

Bring.Love for $30,000

votes will be public

Inspired by - https://www.namepros.com/threads/br...ocial-media-influencers.1203075/#post-7895581

 

[bmugford]

Please permit me to start a poll to ask if using others' actual domain names for discussion without the owners' permissions to intentionally devalue the domains is an ethical behavior as written by you publicly at NamePros. Or you can choose to not permit me but this will show that what you said about "reasonable" and "expecting a discussion" are all bullshit, and you are just a bad guy with double standard.

Why would you need my permission to do that?

But if you do please make it a neutral poll. Your phrasing above is obviously a loaded question, which is disingenuous.

Is it alright to talk about someone's domain that was featured in a public article?
That is more neutral wording.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

My phrasing is neutral and includes all the key points (others' actual domain names, without the owners' permissions, and intentionally devalue the domains), while your phrasing misses all these key points.

It is just a public poll that is similar to JB Lions's poll, probably better than his poll because my poll is not targeted to people who hate you that can lead to seriously based result. When you accept his poll, you should accept my poll as well. Or does it mean that when you may become a victim, you think this kind of "reasonable", "expected" and "ethical" poll is not acceptable?

According to your logic, when you write something publicly, you should expect any discussions of any types and it is reasonable and ethical that others start a poll that is intentionally destroy others. When you only permit me to do a specific poll or try to change the phrasing of my poll, you already violate your thought and it already shows that you are just a bad guy with double standard.

JB's poll was unbiased. It gave (2) options A or B with no attempted influence over the results.
Your wording is obviously loaded.

You are pretty silly. I am going to be a victim because you post a poll?

Again, you don't need my permission if you want to post a poll. Feel free.

Brad

 

[April004]

As a novice user I'll never remember Bring.Love or was that Bring.Love.com? or BringLove.com? - that would be messy. So stick to .COM, and get BringLove.com even if it for higher/similar/lower price than .Love.

But IF you are spending a fortune on brand-marketing of "www.Bring.Love" on Internet and offline, then grab it for any price you want and build a brand around it.

 

[MysteryUser.com]

@TauseefKhan I was interested in this thread because my website is a .love and I share by word of mouth, almost no one I know seemed to understand what I was saying. I realized "dot love" is foreign to most people in this small town I'm in. I always end by saying "dot love, not dot com."

from a branding perspective, .love does work better. why not buy the wordlove.com and redirect it to word.love?

I’m buying a word.gTLD soon, I know it will create some confusion but I’m banking on most of my traffic being via google search, and links and not people typing in my domain

i see two benefits - having a short memorable url, and no need to trademark my name since nobody could rightfully trademark word.gTLD after my website is established and say I am in violation of their trademark. If you go the .com route, you need to check trademark registers to make sure somebody doesn’t already have your name marked

 

[HotKey]

Agree with your points, except .com being inferior, .com is the gold standard

But all the good .coms are taken. I can’t wait until gTLDs become widely accepted!

Depends on the name- that's the beauty of domain names isn't it! Anything more than a one-word name is opportunity for a match.

If you want new gTLDs to become widely accepted, stop thinking in old "gold standard" terms- make a new gold standard for our buyers! Investors play a much bigger role in making internet addresses awesome than we realize.

By constantly beating the same old drum, we drive away adoption.

 

[HotKey]

I want to see awesome internet addresses everywhere. I don't want to visit crappy urls. So while we push for .COM all day long, the blinders I refer to are the better options available in word.word that we miss.

We are what we eat, so those that worship and kneel before the "king" only get fed the leftovers. I for one don't want to wallow in half the junk that people try to sell for the mere reason it's resting on the .com, when surfing the net.

Perhaps you've got hundreds maybe thousands of unsold names left over in your portfolio that are left flailing to better options now. I get it. But what I saw less than a decade ago when new G's first arrived was an answer to a big problem: Web addresses were really starting to suck!

Sorry, being .com is not good enough anymore.

 

[oldtimer]

The best strategy is to own a brandable New gTLD and the matching .com

That way you'll be safe until there is widespread adaption for New Gs

IMO

 

[bmugford]

I have an (18) letter .COM pending sale for almost $30K. Let me know when a new extension can do that.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

You have to wait for more mega new gTLD sales: it also took .com domains 30 years to achieve some numbers, and you know it You did not have those numbers 5 or 6 years since .com started. With new gTLDs, this is just the very beginning.

One thing is for sure: although many domainers with large .com portfolios were really rooting so much for "new gTLDs are dead" outcome, big global companies do not care at all about domainers. They are rapidly adopting new gTLDs. Think of blockchain and crypto space for example: many major companies are now using new gTLDs, for example Block.One, Chain.Link, Tron.Network, and it goes on and on...

This very much accelerates general public adoption of new gTLDs.

It is the kick the can down the road argument.

There was certainly no paradigm shift like these were hyped to be.
It is not like new extensions are really gaining any traction when it comes to resale either.

2019 -
(219) $30K+ .COM sales
(6) $30K+ new gTLD sales

2020 -
(126) $30K+ .COM sales
(2) $30K+ new gTLD sales

I really fail to see all this supposed traction and demand. The resale numbers are not showing it.
As time goes on the resale gap is getting bigger, not smaller.

Brad

 

[dande]

discussing new gTLDs with some legacy domainers here feels to me like this

Good that you know you're fighting a losing battle.

You should be tired of your .Internationals by now. Or still going strong?

 

[dande]

@dande that reply was a little snappy. Watch the whole video, it's entertaining - and it has nothing to do with losing battle, not even slightest. I am not in any battle, and nor should be you or anyone else. I am just explaining the advantages of new gTLDs, in a thread that was created by someone who has already missed good old new gTLD vs.com debate

Yeah, the video is very entertaining. I think I've watched the full Documentary on NatGoeWild or something. I thought you were highlight the odds against ngtlds. So when I say you were in a losing battle, I don't mean you as individual, I mean the believers in newGTLDs

 

[HotKey]

Our next generation probably will ask, "What is .com?"

Shhh... come now, baby steps. Let's enjoy these years, the calm before the storm.

btw, real nice name; chess (stream) and matched the new G' to boot. In the new gTLD, avoids that nasty bunched up triple "s", nicely separated by the dot.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Take the example bobthebuilder.com vs bobthe.builder...

To me, one of the clear problems with this is that the new G changes your brand name from "Bob the Builder" to 'Bob the dot builder" which makes no sense.

In terms of branding and getting your name out there, these new G name hacks seem to solve one problem (finding a name that fits) and creates another (it makes no sense when spoken).

The shop.app example doesn't have this problem because the name of the app is 'shop', not 'shop app' as can be seen from their marketing and app name.

It feels like there are 3 things here that are distinct. A simple .COM, a name hack using a gtld and then a brand established on a gtld that doesn't "span the dot".

If I set up a brand called "Bob the Builder" and it was on the .bricks extension, then bobthebuilder.bricks would be what I consider to be "more normal" because it fits the usual pattern. I know from looking at it what the brand is and the extension matches the brand, not the other way around.

In fact we'd end up with a lot of weirdness if we all included the domain extension in our brand names, everyone would be basically the same and indistinguishable from one another in the marketplace.

Are there many examples of the new gtlds being used as a domain hack where someone has established a brand and included the bit in the dot within their brand name and used it as their main domain?

 

[HotKey]

@MadAboutDomains if you're interested, please have a look at:

InTheWild.Domains

Are there many examples of the new gtlds being used as a domain hack where someone has established a brand and included the bit in the dot within their brand name and used it as their main domain?

You won't regret it; fascinating collection of live sites using word.word = brand. I do get the irony of the hosting party playing switcharoo with their own new G' in the name while showcasing exact matches.

Personally, I have tons of bookmarked sites that are also based on this theory of being able to use a NEMD (just for this purpose will call them "new exact-match domains"), where the domain is the name.

See, we forget that even using a .com still has a "dot" breaking up the name, because you have to say "BobtheBuilder-dot-com", the extension cannot just be assumed, and in this case, the business name shouldn't take on the ".com" portion of the domain as part of the name; it just makes it sound like a url rather than a brand. It also ruins the physical signage portion of the branding.

You raise fair points though in your whole post, and I can see how really it can just come down to a matter of taste rather than something that's not necessarily "better" or "worse". Really, thanks for your post MAD.

 

[Henry Y]

This poll reminds me of Shop(.app) (sold for $200,000) and Shop/App(.com), which are both owned by Shopify. As Shopify currently chooses to use the .app version for its business and let the .com version be unused, I believe Shopify will vote for the .love version.

I think if this poll's respondents are real business owners, the poll result will be quite different.

 

[Henry Y]

For the poll results to be quite different, you're saying "real business owners" would pick:

bring.love for $30,000

instead of

bring.com for $3,595

No, they wouldn't. That would be quite insane.

What I mean about "quite different result" is that there may be a higher proportion (probably 10%, 20% or more) choose the .love one, not just 1 guy only. I don't refuse that .com is still the king, but I also accept the fact that more and more business owners are willing to use new gTLDs.

Also, bring.love is not comparable to bring.com.

 

[Samer]

The .com wins.

Not just win; ngtlds were swept; bring brooms,

the two “Nays” were troll “Nays”

They even admitted to so.

 

[3sixty]

They just use Shop.app to go and download their app to your mobile.
If they were going to use Shop.app to run their main business, their real business, then you can come here and talk about .app

But they won't never ever do that in 1000 years, and do you know why? because if they do that, the owners of Shop.com will be sooooo grateful and happy for the extra of daily million users coming to Shop.com thanks to Shop.app

Shop.app is a different offering than Shopify though. Different brandname format too, generic keyword versus a brandable. So of course Shopify will work better on the dotcom.

In this example, which one do you recall first? ShopApp.com or Shop.app?

For me it is the latter, and for me it is an example where the nTLD works better because it creates singularity towards the brand name. For ShopApp.com what is it exactly? Is it Shop App, Shopapp, a shop app or ShopApp.com?

 

[lock]

I dropped some gtlds as the dot com was too cheap.But not cheap enough to add margin. Meaning the gtld was too expensive and renewals will add to spend up to the value of dot com trying to own it.

 

[Henry Y]

This thread and the voting is for educational purposes and not done out of malice.
I would like to believe the domain name is coincidence, could've been anything else, e.g. moneylove[dot]com against money[dot]love

Just my opinion.

Educational purpose is not an excuse. We should get agreement from the domain owners before creating the poll because the domains are not our assets. If someone choose a domain from your portfolio and then create a educational poll to ask whether the domain is worthless or overpriced, what will you think and how will you feel? Please respect others. This is basic for being a good human.

Also, this poll and the domain are not coincidence. This poll was created intentionally. Please read the first post of this thread about why the poll creator started the poll. He could actually use "word1.word2" and "word1word2.com" to replace real domains to start the poll, but he didn't do so.

 

[JB Lions]

Educational purpose is not an excuse. We should get agreement from the domain owners before creating the poll because the domains are not our assets. If someone choose a domain from your portfolio and then create a educational poll to ask whether the domain is worthless or overpriced, what will you think and how will you feel? Please respect others. This is basic for being a good human.

Also, this poll and the domain are not coincidence. This poll was created intentionally. Please read the first post of this thread about why the poll creator started the poll. He could actually use "word1.word2" and "word1word2.com" to replace real domains to start the poll, but he didn't do so.

It was actually in response to the replies he was making in the thread, using the example he used in his article.

 

[Henry Y]

It was actually in response to the replies he was making in the thread, using the example he used in his article.

But you did not get agreement from him and Huge Domains before starting this poll.

Please be ethical and respect others.

 

[JB Lions]

But you did not get agreement from him before starting this poll.

Please be ethical and respect others.

I went over that already. If you start a thread in a discussion forum talking about something or linking to an article, then people can discuss it. What did I use at the beginning? "Inspired by" then linked to his post. He told be to log off, asked me which one would I remember, talking about $1 .coms. That got me checking.

Another recent thread talking about pricing and TM's - https://www.namepros.com/threads/abject-stupidity.1203417/

They bought an ad at NP, people will discuss it.

If you don't want people to discuss, don't start threads on it.

On a side note, that PewDiePie example left out the fact he owns the .com and it's forwarding to his YouTube channel. You start talking about getting names in case you Social Media account goes down, then use an example talking about something else, a store.

http://www.pewdiepie.com

Another side note, I didn't even know Huge Domains owned it, I saw that price typing it into GoDaddy. Says nothing about Huge Domains, and they wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not super secret info. These prices are all public.

 

[Josytal]

Educational purpose is not an excuse. We should get agreement from the domain owners before creating the poll because the domains are not our assets. If someone choose a domain from your portfolio and then create a educational poll to ask whether the domain is worthless or overpriced, what will you think and how will you feel? Please respect others. This is basic for being a good human.

Also, this poll and the domain are not coincidence. This poll was created intentionally. Please read the first post of this thread about why the poll creator started the poll. He could actually use "word1.word2" and "word1word2.com" to replace real domains to start the poll, but he didn't do so.

I said in my opinion, the thread is educative and informative. And I'am still of that opinion, regardless. Thanks.

 

[Henry Y]

I went over that already. If you start a thread in a discussion forum talking about something or linking to an article, then people can discuss it.

Another recent thread talking about pricing and TM's - https://www.namepros.com/threads/abject-stupidity.1203417/

If you don't want people to discuss, don't start threads on it.

On a side note, that PewDiePie example left out the fact he owns the .com and it's forwarding to his YouTube channel. You start talking about getting names in case you Social Media account goes down, then use an example talking about something else, a store.

http://www.pewdiepie.com

He started a thread, then you should discuss on that thread, not create a new poll thread without his agreement. If you were him, what would you think and what would you feel if someone started a poll like this poll without your permission? If you still think it is ok, then please don't complain when someone create a poll about your domains in the future.