.com is even more king than before?

[jacal1]

If I am not imagining it, .com prices seem to be breaking away even further from every other TLD. Maybe as more and more exts. are used, the king gets more powerful? Or maybe its like anything precious that is running out? Or possibly its just that as more people worldwide get internet savvy they are "learning" to go to .com first?

All I know is that I can't even an inquiry re any of my .nets these days, and even what I thought were average .coms are getting significant action.

 

[Web Master]

.Com is the default domain name.

 

[jacal1]

I know - but even though most search engines don't automatically go to the .com anymore if you leave out an ext., it still seems to be gaining even more relative value...

 

[Web Master]

Usually real business companies pay higher than others to acquire domains, and .Com is .Company in the eyes of real business companies. So, we'll see good .Com's values growing higher in the near future.

 

[Spade]

.com has wide consumer acknowledgement, as THE extension. Bottom line is that business will continue to buy .com because lets be honest, to the general public, random TLD's and ccTLD's simply dont seem credible. As more new business clammers for online presence - they are forced to spend solid money on their domain names...

Justin

 

[moped]

I think Frank Shilling sums it up here;

"it's really hard to change human behavior and more than a trillion in marketing has been spent entrenching .com"

 

[competentdomains]

"it's really hard to change human behavior and more than a trillion in marketing has been spent entrenching .com"

I don´t agree at all, even though that man is a super domainer, he is wrong. The name com was marketing itself due to its supreme phonetic value and because the name com* was already known in ordinary words (come, communication, company, companion, community, comedy, combination, comfort,commence, comment, commission, common, compact, compass, compete, compose etc etc) than any other extension, thus becoming familiar instantly.

 

[-REECE-]

I don´t agree at all, even though that man is a super domainer, he is wrong. The name com was marketing itself due to its supreme phonetic value and because the name com* was already known in ordinary words (come, communication, company, companion, community, comedy, combination, comfort,commence, comment, commission, common, compact, compass, compete, compose etc etc) than any other extension, thus becoming familiar instantly.

Agreed. Kind of like .tv IMO (coming from a non-investor for those wondering). I don't think it would take much branding for people to associate .tv with online "tv"/video.

Some extensions had an advantage right out from the get-go. Look at how .org is starting to dominate the not for profit industry... How many people need to be told more than once that .org is for organizations? It just flows naturally...

Something like WebTV had billions of dollars pumped into it and ultimately failed. In the end, it's not just the sheer amount of dollars pumped into something that determines success or failure, rather it's the intelligent use of advertising dollars combined with a well thought out brand and idea that determine success or failure.

Pets.com was a great idea... Too bad it was run by a bunch of guys who didn't know their head from their, er... when it came to "selling" their idea. Youtube wasn't the first video site, it was the first video site that "did it right". So we look at .com and say "it's the first extension that did it right." It wasn't the marketing dollars alone. It was everything.

 

[ferraristi]

The .com tld also has history on its side. It was one of the first six released all of which had specific reasons for being. .com was for commercial organisations, .net was for network infrastructure type organisations, .mil was for the u.s. military, .edu was for educational establishments, .gov was for the u.s government and u.s governement agencies and .org was for all other types of organisation. This is why there is a tendency for non profit organisations to traditionally be .orgs, they simply don't fit into any other category.

Companies such as Dec and IBM registered their .com domains in 1985 and 1986 respectively. When they did this, then other organisations followed suit and soon every company wanted to own its own domain name. If big blue was doing it at the time then other companies had to be seen to be doing it also.

This is where the preference for .com orginally came from

 

[seeker]

I agree with most of the above.
However, there is a tendency these days for .org to be seen simply as ORGanization, not necessarily not fpr profit. More and more Organizations that are for profit use .org these days.

 

[gazzip]

The .com is definetly king of PPC and America, other countries have their own "king" - .de, .co.uk for instance.

There are sometimes very good reasons to own the cctld rather than the .com

JMO

.

 

[ferraristi]

I agree with most of the above.
However, there is a tendency these days for .org to be seen simply as ORGanization, not necessarily not fpr profit. More and more Organizations that are for profit use .org these days.

Oh yeah, I completely agree with that. Since .net and .org were derestricted then anyone can register one. I was just trying to argue that part of .com's dominance comes from its place in history as the TLD that was originally specifically meant to be for commercial organisations.

 

[bricio]

The .com is definetly king of PPC and America, other countries have their own "king" - .de, .co.uk for instance.

There are sometimes very good reasons to own the cctld rather than the .com

JMO

great post gazzip... u r totally correct
each country w its king... in my country dot com isnt the most important and it is used here but it isnt the main one, at least here

 

[stscac]

.com has wide consumer acknowledgement, as THE extension.

THIS is your answer as to why.

-Steve

 

[Spade]

THIS is your answer as to why.

-Steve

Steve's a smart man... I agree with Steve.. :hehe:

 

[dmblea]

Com Is King! Well Said!

 

[sashas]

I was looking to buy a calling card online from a company that used the .net as the extension of their website.
Very frankly, I did some research on them to see if they were legitimate. Just the fact that they did their business on a .net instead of a .com made me wary of their legitimacy.

My point: If a company does not own the .com of its name, it loses a lot of credibility. It simply tells me that your cash registers show a negative balance, thats why you couldn't buy the .com. And if you can't even muster up the money to buy the .com, why should I do business with you?

Such is the power of .com over our conscious.

In those respects, I think the ccTLDs fare a lot better than the gTLDs when compared to .com. If a company does its business on its country ccTLD and does not own the .com, I think that the company is only trying to be loyal and patriotic. But if it does its business on a .net instead of a .com, then I think that the company is just plain poor.

 

[twells22]

I come from a small town that probably has never know of anything other then .com, .net, .org. For the most part all they know is .com. I'm sure its like this in other small, less tech, places.

 

[gazzip]

My point: If a company does not own the .com of its name, it loses a lot of credibility. It simply tells me that your cash registers show a negative balance, thats why you couldn't buy the .com. And if you can't even muster up the money to buy the .com, why should I do business with you?
.

That sounds a little too slanted towards a domainers point of view - but do end users/shoppers/customers think that way ? most of the general public have absolutely no idea that .com domains are even expensive.


.

 

[Silhouette]

But if it does its business on a .net instead of a .com, then I think that the company is just plain poor.

Is this a pretty sweeping statement you made here