domain Childrens dot US

[airwav]

Picked this up off of a drop.

Ideas on value and dev would be appreciated

Thanks.

 

[Kate]

Childrens ? It's a typo...

 

[airwav]

Childrens ? It's a typo...

No, it is ChildrenS. That would be a typo of Children?

 

[Fka200]

Children is already plural. It's a typo. Child is singular ... Children is plural. Childrens doesn't make sense.

 

[npcomplete]

Actually it is not a typo. When used in the possessive case (with apostrophe) it is very common. For example, "Children's Medical Center in Dallas" owns Childrens.com.

There are probably hundreds or more of "children's hospitals" and care clinics throughout the US, so possibly some children's clinic in the US might want the domain.

The quoted results in google for "childrens" returns 13,900,000, obviously in the possessive case.

When you look at adword support on Google you find that there is *heavy* advertiser competition, and strong search volume. So the phrase is in very common usage, widely searched, and has heavy advertiser support... sounds like a good mix to me! Obviously, the possessive form "children's" has higher search volume than the grammatically incorrect version of the possessive "childrens".

I have taken a few weeks off from watching the drop lists, but had I seen it during my drop scan I would have picked it up... or at least tried in the auction after the drop catch.

Just out of curiosity, did you hear President Bush use the "childrens" phrase... which was grammatically incorrect as used, but funny.

Good find.

Marc

 

[airwav]

Actually it is not a typo. When used in the possessive case (with apostrophe) it is very common. For example, "Children's Medical Center in Dallas" owns Childrens.com.

There are probably hundreds or more of "children's hospitals" and care clinics throughout the US, so possibly some children's clinic in the US might want the domain.

The quoted results in google for "childrens" returns 13,900,000, obviously in the possessive case.

When you look at adword support on Google you find that there is *heavy* advertiser competition, and strong search volume. So the phrase is in very common usage, widely searched, and has heavy advertiser support... sounds like a good mix to me! Obviously, the possessive form "children's" has higher search volume than the grammatically incorrect version of the possessive "childrens".

I have taken a few weeks off from watching the drop lists, but had I seen it during my drop scan I would have picked it up... or at least tried in the auction after the drop catch.

Just out of curiosity, did you hear President Bush use the "childrens" phrase... which was grammatically incorrect as used, but funny.

Good find.

Marc

... Wow

:wave: Rep added.

Would "Childrens" as in the hospitals be a TM violation?

 

[htmlindex]

Sorry, but Childrens.us doesn't really make much sense to me. Reg fee IMO

 

[webcom]

Take a look at childrens.com - seems to work for them

 

[npcomplete]

... Wow

:wave: Rep added.

Would "Childrens" as in the hospitals be a TM violation?

Thanks, and I wouldn't worry about TM issues. It is a generic, and while there may be "stylized" TM's and others involving the words, the actual word is generic... although as the saying goes: seek professional legal help if problems arise...

In this particular case the competition on .org is ppc, and .net is a domain for sale site, so it doesn't look like TM is an issue here.

Marc

 

[sashas]

no TM issues obviously here.

While I do agree that it can be (and should be) used in the possessive form, my first reaction upon seeing the name was: "someone with bad grammar just hand regged this", which is not something you want your visitor to feel when they get to your website. While the OP certainly did not mean it to be taken this way (he obviously wanted it to be in the possessive - the proper grammar), it invariably turns out this way.

I personally don't put too much value of possessive names, less so on .us, which to me is the slowest mainstream TLD. Reg fee, IMO