Dot .Band - I predict success, but...

[SearchEngineZ]

I can see the .band gTLD being a big success - primarily because rocks bands often have names that mean something else, and it is hard for them to do well in the SERPs unless they are huge.

Case in point, Scottish band Chvrches (give them a listen) spelled it that way so people could find them on Google.

BUT... there's no money in it for domainers unless you plan on squatting and selling to specific bands.

I predict that soon there will be a well-knoiwn band using it in their promos, like perhaps:

tool.band
cake.band

and then others could follow suit.

 

[RU]

I think .brand would be best, IMO

 

[Kate]

What is the definition of success ? The registry being profitable ?

 

[JB Lions]

I predict that soon there will be a well-knoiwn band using it in their promos, like perhaps:

tool.band
cake.band

and then others could follow suit.

tool already has toolband.com

cake already has cakemusic.com

They both already rank #1 if you type their name plus keywords like music, band etc.

They both have many links in from many different places, bookmarks, social media presence etc.

aka, what they have now, works. There is no reason to throw away what works. Tell me the benefit of changing what works. There is none.

 

[johname]

The Dot MUSIC neutered Dot BAND in my opinion. But there will probably be enough garage band wannabes and real bands trying to protect their tm to keep the extension a float


Maybe some rubber.band companys too lol

 

[Jasonn]

this tld will work best for small bands with no budget. i get inquiries from bands all the time but they never want to pay anything.

 

[JB Lions]

I think .brand would be best, IMO

Don't like that one eitiher, to me that's kind of like a .name for a business, which I think is probably one of the worst ones out there.

dave.name - If someone had one of those, I would think they're a bit slow. Yes, Dave is your name, congrats for figuring that out.

nike.brand - Yes, Nike is your brand, you're a genius for knowing that.

 

[McDuke]

I think .band could have a following, SteveMiller.Band or stuff like MyRock.Band, TotallyAwesomeRidiculouslyCoolMetal.Band etc..

For sales what would be best? .music?

@ JB wow toolband.com hey i never thought they would do this. Tool.com must have been untouchable.

One thing to note about toolband.com ranking number #1 couldn't tool.band rank #1 also? Wouldn't having the dot there actually indicate the bands name is Tool. not toolband. hmmm interesting.

 

[HeyNow]

tool already has toolband.com

cake already has cakemusic.com

They both already rank #1 if you type their name plus keywords like music, band etc.

They both have many links in from many different places, bookmarks, social media presence etc.

aka, what they have now, works. There is no reason to throw away what works. Tell me the benefit of changing what works. There is none.

Dinosaur. Think forward, not aft.

 

[JB Lions]

Dinosaur. Think forward, not aft.

You have to do better than that. What part of that post didn't make sense to you? And what is aft.

 

[Jasonn]

Dinosaur. Think forward, not aft.

yeah you stupid dinosaurs!! putting a dot betweern words is so forward thinking and innovative.

 

[SearchEngineZ]

What is the definition of success ? The registry being profitable ?

I guess I mean making it into public awareness.

I have no idea what makes a registry profitable, but presume almost every new one, new gTLD, will lose lots of money.

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 AM ----------

tool already has toolband.com

cake already has cakemusic.com

I feel that .band sounds better, and sounds more official.

I predict the same for movies with .movie - I dislike seeing ads saying visit animalhousethemovie.com or whatever.

 

[HeyNow]

You have to do better than that. What part of that post didn't make sense to you? And what is aft.

Aft is an aviation term for back, behind, opposite of forward.

My point is that, of course, bands currently successfully vested with .com have little interest in switching to any alternative. The gamble is counting on future generations of bands to make the .band gTLD a hot item. It (.band) sucks as far as I'm concerned, but I'm probably a dinosaur too. I can't see the wisdom of .band now, but if I had been smart enough to see the wisdom of .com back in 1990, I probably wouldn't be dicking around here today.

 

[McDuke]

I had been smart enough to see the wisdom of .com back in 1990, I probably wouldn't be dicking around here today.

Just like then, there are very few people aware of the roll out.

I remember my buddy's older brother loading through dos a web page back in 90 'ish", we thought it was the coolest thing. If only someone had told us we could get our own name for free....

I think in 20 years people will say the same about this roll out, just not at the same scale as the .com boom.

But who knows maybe certain keyword + extension combos will bring a premium.

 

[Kate]

My point is that, of course, bands currently successfully vested with .com have little interest in switching to any alternative. The gamble is counting on future generations of bands to make the .band gTLD a hot item.

That is not forward thinking, it is wishful thinking.
I may be a dinosaur too, but I am more interested in the things that are proven today. I won't be the first to gamble on this thing.

And as said above, .music probably has more appeal than .band. So yes it's just another extension.

 

[JB Lions]

Aft is an aviation term for back, behind, opposite of forward.

My point is that, of course, bands currently successfully vested with .com have little interest in switching to any alternative. The gamble is counting on future generations of bands to make the .band gTLD a hot item. It (.band) sucks as far as I'm concerned, but I'm probably a dinosaur too. I can't see the wisdom of .band now, but if I had been smart enough to see the wisdom of .com back in 1990, I probably wouldn't be dicking around here today.

There isn't any wisdom in it. From a domainer's perspective, it's probably one of the worst ones out there.

The obvious ones will be gone before widespread general availability, rock.band, jazz.band etc.

After that, it's going to be pretty much squatting. Since bands are pretty much original names, in order to sell it to them, you have to have it, squatting. And with original names, goes back to probably available in .com or they can buy it cheap. Then most musical acts don't call themselves a band. Some are just solo artists, maybe a music group and most just want to be called their name and nothing else, build up a brand. And what's been pointed out, there's .music coming.

So for domainers, probably poor investment. So we'll have to see if endusers can keep it afloat, passing by the .com for a .band.

 

[hawkeye]

... what they have now, works. There is no reason to throw away what works. Tell me the benefit of changing what works. There is none.

Can someone please explain 'why' it is felt by some, that if an entity regs a new gTLD domain, that they then are 'going to', or 'have to', get rid of their current site and extension, and start over with a new site for that gTLD domain??? Is it in the terms of service for these new gTLDs, or is this just a domainer rule (that no one else is aware of)? It seems some feel there can only be one use for a domain, the main site, and using more than one domain to either target, redirect, or just to add another related site, especially if it's a new gTLD, is a no-no.

Sad to see so many with 'eyes wide shut' to any alternatives to what 'others' do or are doing with their domain names for their internet branding.

 

[JB Lions]

Can someone please explain 'why' it is felt by some, that if an entity regs a new gTLD domain, that they then are 'going to', or 'have to', get rid of their current site and extension, and start over with a new site for that gTLD domain??? Is it in the terms of service for these new gTLDs, or is this just a domainer rule (that no one else is aware of)? It seems some feel there can only be one use for a domain, the main site, and using more than one domain to either target, redirect, or just to add another related site, especially if it's a new gTLD, is a no-no.

Sad to see so many with 'eyes wide shut' to any alternatives to what 'others' do or are doing with their domain names for their internet branding.

Sad to see so many with brain wide shut and read things the wrong way. Where did I say you have to get rid of it and start over on a new gtld?

 

[Domainace]

.music is way ahead here. Not just the words, but the people behind .music are smart and organized. So far as domain investing, there just aren't that many bands who make enough money to go domain shopping. And the ones who make a lot of money will just have their lawyer take it from you.

For the registry, once they've made their initial investment, the ongoing costs seem quite low. Not as many will go broke as is expected I think. If .band could get groups to sign up like MySpace did, it could become profitable. But that brings us back to .music again.

 

[hawkeye]

Sad to see so many with brain wide shut and read things the wrong way. Where did I say you have to get rid of it and start over on a new gtld?

hmm -

what they have now, works. There is no reason to throw away what works. Tell me the benefit of changing what works. There is none

ok.., then what is the gist of this to mean then???

 

[JB Lions]

hmm - ok.., then what is the gist of this to mean then???

It means that ironmaiden.com works. There is no need for them to get ironmaiden.band

 

[hawkeye]

It means that ironmaiden.com works. There is no need for them to get ironmaiden.band

So you're saying that 'whatever' other plans they may have for it, need for it, want for it, is immaterial, because 'you' feel there is no need for them to get it because they have it in dot com. Will you be advising all that reg new extensions what they 'need' or not?

 

[JB Lions]

So you're saying that 'whatever' other plans they may have for it, need for it, want for it, is immaterial, because 'you' feel there is no need for them to get it because they have it in dot com. Will you be advising all that reg new extensions what they 'need' or not?

Stay focused on the topic at hand. This isn't an all new registrations thread. We're talking about .band.

So for the ironmaiden.com example. There is no need for .band. How does the .com not work now? Tell me how .band solves some kind of problem they might have? Tell be some benefits from it with your next post. Give me something and then let's take a look at it and see if it makes sense.

 

[.NJ]

For the registry, once they've made their initial investment, the ongoing costs seem quite low.

Yes the ongoing cost will be low, but................

It's the initial investment that is the problem.

More then half these new extensions won't even reach the point of breaking even when you figure in the cost of minimal advertising.

I still don't understand what the business model was for some of these extensions.

We are talking about upwards of $500K initial investments here.

I understand the dream and concept, but I just dont see the success....now or later.

:imho:

 

[Domainace]

Yes, well maybe I should revise that to companies/people with money (500K) to burn will survive. If someone went out on a limb to come up with the initial investment, or borrowed the money, it's another story.