Domainers are forcing non-dot com acceptance

[mhdoc]

Last night I bought some more dot infos. As part of my purchase process with dot infos I look to see if the dot com, net and org are developed. In most cases all three are registered but none are developed.

I still prefer to put serious sites on dot coms, but I am starting to wonder if there is really much, if any, penalty for using some other extension. Maybe it would be better to spend the difference in cost on marketing or site development.

Most of those dot coms are not going to be developed any time soon, so I don't really have to worry about traffic bleed away from my site.

Only the richest, best funded businesses will ever be able to acquire those dot coms. Everyone else has to settle for something else. That suggests that, over time, more and more of the search results will show non dot com sites. It seems like that will break down any consumer perceptions about only dot com being trustworthy.

If consumers no longer care much about what comes after the dot, the value differential between dot com and the others should narrow. The money saved might have more value if spent on elsewhere.

Thoughts?

 

[equity78]

Last night I bought some more dot infos. As part of my purchase process with dot infos I look to see if the dot com, net and org are developed. In most cases all three are registered but none are developed.

I still prefer to put serious sites on dot coms, but I am starting to wonder if there is really much, if any, penalty for using some other extension. Maybe it would be better to spend the difference in cost on marketing or site development.

Most of those dot coms are not going to be developed any time soon, so I don't really have to worry about traffic bleed away from my site.

Only the richest, best funded businesses will ever be able to acquire those dot coms. Everyone else has to settle for something else. That suggests that, over time, more and more of the search results will show non dot com sites. It seems like that will break down any consumer perceptions about only dot com being trustworthy.

If consumers no longer care much about what comes after the dot, the value differential between dot com and the others should narrow. The money saved might have more value if spent on elsewhere.

Thoughts?

I understand the thought process but I think the one thing that goes against that hypothesis coming true is that the biggest developed companies are already developed on .com. Sure if I wanted a category killer I might not have the six figures for the .com and go with a dot whatever, but will I ever make the first page of Google with my site ? That might be just as hard as acquiring a premium .com.

 

[mhdoc]

I'm not really thinking of category killer level competition. The dot coms have "all" been registered down to tiny three and even four word niches. Maybe my question would be better stated as "Does dot com matter when you are niched down into the 2-3-4 word range?"

 

[garptrader]

Not quite - end users settle for three and four-word or hyphenated or abbreviated word .COMs rather than buying much better aftermarket .COMs. We now have 14 million new TLD registrations and with many of those new TLDs, only certain keywords make sense i.e. .Condos, .Miami, .Shoes. Running.Shoes or NewYork.Condos make sense but California.Miami does not. If all the decent keywords in new TLDs are in the hands of domainers or registry-reserved with premium prices, then what will an end user go back to? Crappy .COMs. Keep in mind, as a financial professional I have seen how much companies large and small actually spend on legal costs ($200-$400/hr), audits (five figures for a small company), IT consultants ($90-$200/hour), travel (hotel, airfare, meals for a few executives on a business trip can run low five figures) and I have seen private airplanes as well - any idea how much it costs to maintain a plane, pilot, fuel, maintenance (once saw a six-figure repair bill). Yet when you approach a business about buying a domain they will often balk at spending $XXX for one. But they will spend five figures or more on website development or thousands on Google Adwords. It doesn't make sense. But that is the mindset that needs to be overcome before the domain aftermarket will blossom

 

[inforg]

I think that if you are developing a site you have to do the math on whether or not a .com is really necessary or provides any kind of return on investment.

If you are going to market your business off line in print, radio or television, I think a .com is critical to get maximum return on your ad spending.

If you are doing an online only business, many times you are better off spending the money on Adwords, social media ads, etc.

Type-in traffic seems to be shrinking as people find what they need on search engines, in their browser history, or links from social media.

As an example, If the .com you want is 10k, and it gets about 100 type-ins a month and you convert 10% of your visitors for a net profit of $8 each, it would take you roughly 10 years to recoup your investment. Of course if you didn't over pay, you always have the domain as an asset.

For a developer, just build a great site, make some money, and then buy the domain later when you have the cash. If you have a good product, they will find you.

As a domain investor, I still think your best investments are in meaningful .com or .org

 

[artstar]

Many people input a search term in an se to locate sites, they don't care what the TLD is.

A dot cvom tLD is valuable when typing in the url only and most people who type in the domain default to the dot com out of habit.

How many people type in the domain compared to searching for the term then they choose the link?

The dot com is the default TLD always but in time once people search and bookmark sites they really won't care what the TLD is.

 

[Kate]

Only the richest, best funded businesses will ever be able to acquire those dot coms. Everyone else has to settle for something else.

Well, you are exaggerating here. Domain names are not that expensive, unless you want the cream of the crop. A business can afford to pay low $,$$$ for a domain name (pretty much the average sales prices I think). An individual will usually never buy on the aftermarket for some low-key project like a personal blog. Not even $100.

And your statement would be valid if there were abundant choice left in the new or not so new extensions other than .com. This isn't the case. The majority of good keywords are long gone to domainers or hoarded by the registries, which is the same thing.

Result: back to square one.

 

[Asfas1000]

I think that if you are developing a site you have to do the math on whether or not a .com is really necessary or provides any kind of return on investment.

If you also factor in the lost traffic, the lesser credibility ( = less conversions) and the fact that the .com owner will increase the asking price when he notices a developed site on the .net , it should be less than 10 years.

 

[Asfas1000]

Mhdoc offered some very good thoughts. Still, I think this can't be true ( that domainers are forcing noncom acceptance) . I think the laws of demand and supply define the prices close to their "real values" .

 

[inforg]

If you also factor in the lost traffic, the lesser credibility ( = less conversions) and the fact that the .com owner will increase the asking price when he notices a developed site on the .net , it should be less than 10 years.

Perhaps, but a lot of intangible stuff there. Most projects or investments in business target a 12 to 24 month ROI to consider it worthwhile. There are certainly cases where obtaining the .com would be in this range and be money well spent.

My overall point was that people should know their numbers and do a little math before dropping a high percentage of their budget on the name.

 

[mhdoc]

If you also factor in the lost traffic, the lesser credibility ( = less conversions) and the fact that the .com owner will increase the asking price when he notices a developed site on the .net , it should be less than 10 years.

If the com/net/org are not developed there is no lost traffic.

With dot com pricing and availability driving more businesses to other extensions, people doing searches will more frequently end up on non-com sites. I think that will decrease the value/perception of higher credibility for dot com.

 

[Asfas1000]

driving more businesses to other extensions,

To other extensions or to hyphenated / longer .coms ?

 

[bmugford]

Well, you are exaggerating here. Domain names are not that expensive, unless you want the cream of the crop. A business can afford to pay low $,$$$ for a domain name (pretty much the average sales prices I think). An individual will usually never buy on the aftermarket for some low-key project like a personal blog. Not even $100.

And your statement would be valid if there were abundant choice left in the new or not so new extensions other than .com. This isn't the case. The majority of good keywords are long gone to domainers or hoarded by the registries, which is the same thing.

Result: back to square one.

If an end user can't get their perfect .COM, then they generally just go with another .COM.

Here is an example - Let's say there is a wedding photographer in Charlotte named Bill Smith.
Their first choice might be WeddingPhotography.com or WeddingPhotographer.com. Obviously those are high dollar domains and likely not available. Next they might look at BillSmith.com. That is not available.

Now there come endless options in .COM, for example
SmithPhotography.com
SmithPhoto.com
BillSmithPhoto.com
BillSmithPhotography.com
CharlottePhoto.com
CharlottePhotography.com
CharlottePhotographer.com
CharlotteWeddingPhotographer.com
CharlotteWeddingPhotography.com
and many more....

Not to mention endless brands in .COM they might use.

In summary people are more likely to go for a less than perfect .COM vs. any secondary extensions (except in a country where a ccTLD is dominant).

Brad

 

[mhdoc]

To other extensions or to hyphenated / longer .coms ?

That's the $64 question isn't?

Up to now, when push came to shove, I have always gone with a dot com if I was going to put serious time into developing a site (I only work on my own sites). These days I can pick up what I consider really good dot infos so cheap I am questioning my choices.

So the dot info choices are stronger than they used to be, and the available dot com choices are weaker.

 

[mhdoc]

In summary people are more likely to go for a less than perfect .COM vs. any secondary extensions (except in a country where a ccTLD is dominant).

Brad

I don't doubt that. But when I look at those domain choices you listed I notice they keep getting longer. If you were to add one or two hyphens that would shorten them down again. With a dot info there would be a chance to make it really short

I also remind myself there is no correct answer. These things are no doubt niche dependent. A domain flipper will look at this stuff differently than I do.

 

[Asfas1000]

I think the purpose of the extension is to provide the context. Think gov, edu, org, info. You know what kind of website you will visit before you click. Same with cctlds to some extent. All these extensions have what I would call "personality", and also a reason to exist. I would be OK to build out a org or info, if the extension is a fit.

 

[Debt.tv]

People will typically pay more for their preferred .com or come up with something different or more brandable in the .com...may go .net....going all the way to .info for example...won't happen....

 

[artstar]

Man this topic has been gone over umpteen times and its never resolved to satisfy the original question.

Waste of time IMO !