Located in Domain Beginners, started by JudgeMind, Mar 30, 2015
Thought this was an extremely informative infographic.
Courtesy of domainnamesales.com
I'm not huge on infographics but this is really good, invaluable for beginners who want to learn about finding potential end-users.
Thank you for sharing.
I like lesson number 2 alot the many different factors of a good domain name.
Great Info-graphic !! @JudgeMind
Thanks for sharing this infographics!
What great insight from this infographic
Thanks this was helpful!
Thank you but I think nowadays it's impossible to achieve lesson two points with gTLD one!!
Thank You, goodread
Nice one, thanks
great infographic! Thanks.
I agree and share my fb
Nice, thank you
The straightforward presentation of this makes it easy to read and understand. I especially like Lesson Four - it makes a good argument for anyone saying that domains are overvalued.
i'm very new here ans totally lost
The bathroom is down the hall, second door on the left ..... keep reading, stop buying, enjoy the ride. and ask questions after reading again. and again. lots to learn. o and stop buying, keep reading.
I am going to somewhat buck the trend here and say while the infographic is attractive and does contain some helpful information, especially for newcomers or end users, that I am not a huge fan of it as currently stands. I say that with some hesitation, since it was produced by a company run by one of the huge names in the business.
What are my hesitations?
It says that type-in traffic accounts for 50% of all visitors. Figures like that are that either based on very old data (there is a 2012 mentioned in the article linked) and/or it is counting bot visits which according to fairly recent survey bots account for 52% of visits and are treated as type in traffic. So I did check the footnotes as to where they get the figure from. It is a blog post about data from 2012 (or 2011 not clear) on a single domain name diapers! I don't doubt that a domain name is important, for many good reasons, but in 2019 I really don't think it is primarily because of type in traffic.
I am not sure if Lesson Two means all of those things are important, but clearly some valuable domain names don't encompass all of those aspects. It seems based on the idea that a company needs only one domain name. I think we are increasingly seeing companies using multiple domain names. A main one, usually a com, a the umbrella base address, and others for regional presence, marketing campaigns, etc. For example, not all names are used for branding - if that is what Lesson 2 is meant to say it is not correct.
A more balanced and nuanced view would highlight the endurance of com as the standard, and its widespread popularity, but to simplify this to 'you must have com' is oversimplification. Many on NPs would believe it is true, I acknowledge, but in an infographic I would like to see a more balanced statement. There are regions of the world where the country codes are important (.de is certainly one). Some huge crypto are going with .org. If you look at the DNJournal top 100 of 2018 yes 84 are com, but 9 are country code, 4 are ngTLDs, along with one org and one net.
I think it is telling that the graph of domain prices ends in 2011! It gives a completely misleading picture of the rate of rise of domain prices. We all wish they were doubling in price every 5 years. Single word domains in com are I think increasing in price, but not at the rate suggested here, on average. If you don't believe me plot the highest priced domain sales by year, or the average price in NameBio. Domains in general, especially those of the quality a typical user of this infographic would own, are probably pretty static in price. The graph is highly misleading. It is like a mutual fund company showing results from 2001 to just before the financial crisis of 2008.
Speaking of misleading, let's look at the graph in the middle right of the "Top 5 TLDs" by registration numbers. I think we can all agree that com is dominantly first. But the other 4 are seriously misplaced. net is 4th (not 2nd), org is 8th (not 3rd), info is 9th (not 4th) and biz is 5th (not 22nd). You can readily get these stats here. They list DomainTools, a certainly reputable source, but give no indication of when that data was accessed. Since the footnotes with date are 2010 ad 2011, my guess is it was in that era. A long time ago. Would you make investment decisions today based on the stock market of 2010?
As to their trademarked statement about buying a brand, methinks brand experts would not agree! They could have more accurately stated the case that a great domain name can make it easier to get noticed, and save you advertising dollars. That is certainly true. But you do not buy brands.
If asked to grade the infographic I would give it top marks for presentation, but poor marks for accuracy, use of current data, a balanced viewpoint, and use of relevant sources of information. If asked to grade it as an assignment I would only give it a C- (feeling a little generous ).
So yes, no doubt we can learn from it. I like the presentation comparing domain prices to promotional prices (although wonder based on rest if the data is at all current). View it though as one particular view of how to invest in domain names in 2011.
CORRECTION I just realized I reversed this. Obviously the situation is .biz is 22nd (not 5th as quoted in informercial).
I also meant comment on the examples use. To prove their claim about the necessity and importance of a short, memorable domain name they cite three examples with logos and domains.
money.com is listed with the CNN logo. Now it is true that the domain is still in use, but now as a spinoff from Time-Warner. A clearer example or using the Money publication logo might not look as dated (the restructuring and spinoff was in 2014, so not breaking news).
eat.com is listed with the Ragu logo. Now eat.com domain is still in use, but is now directed to Hellmans. I did not try to trace the history, but Hellmans, part of the Unilever empire, is as far as I can see not Ragu related. At the very least showing a Ragu logo with the domain name eat.com seems confusing.
PC.com The third domain is linked with the Intel logo, and it does still direct to the Intel main site (at Intel.com) but as far as I know is not very actively used any more in marketing. This demonstrates that valuable domain names may drop in importance as technology and trends change. This is actually sort of a negative statement on premium domain investment.
Thousands of good recent cases could have been used to demonstrate this point. Why cite three that are either outdated or have changed use so the logo presented no longer matches the domain name?
The money one could be used to build the case that quality domains retain value even when businesses change, but that is not done on the infographic.
I realize that lots of information gets out of date and it is work maintaining content. This seems to me to stretch it, as it is still prominent on their website, and the content seems accurate to about 2011.
Thank you @Bob Hawkes. I appreciate the way you're able to apply your analytical skills to the many thoughts and opinions presented in this forum. It's always easy to be swayed by different points of view, but you're good at providing thoughtful analyses to help "sober us up".
Separate names with a comma.