new gtlds Geo “.Com” Vs. Geo “New gTLD”

[Eric Lyon]

I’ve written a few articles about Geo domains over the years and talked about why I invested in some of them. If you are not familiar with any of my past writings or not that familiar with Geo domains them self, first check out the article I wrote back in early 2015 on NamePros: “My View On Local Geo Targeted Domains“.

There is a lot of controversy over the fact (Yes, it is a fact) that some of the new gTLD’s work well on keyword play, for instance, one of the domains I listed above; “HoustonTexas.Work” obviously looks like it will work well on the surface, but will it really perform in all the areas it needs to in order to compete with a .com developer/investor?

Let’s not forget that the Geo .com market has barely been tapped yet. There’s millions of .com Geo + Product or Geo + Service domains available for registration still (I know because I own some and have come across more than I can count researching personal projects). Until that locks up tighter, you’re not going to be seeing any shifts in value.

Read More

 

[domainrz]

Good 2 Read, Thanks for sharing Eric

 

[aramyus]

Eric, here are the conclusions I draw from your articles.

Is that a fair understanding ? (sorry my english is not good enough to detect subtilities).

- geo domains should primarily be developed and sold on the basis of real traffic (or perhaps be rented)

- geo traffic often has a high conversion rate. So, even a few tens of visitors per month are valuable for a local business.

- new gtld can be experimented with caution, but only if they generate geo traffic

- with these facts in mind, the geo domain is still highly untapped.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Eric, here are the conclusions I draw from your articles.

Is that a fair understanding ? (sorry my english is not good enough to detect subtilities).

- geo domains should primarily be developed and sold on the basis of real traffic (or perhaps be rented)

- geo traffic often has a high conversion rate. So, even a few tens of visitors per month are valuable for a local business.

- new gtld can be experimented with caution, but only if they generate geo traffic

- with these facts in mind, the geo domain is still highly untapped.

They don't have to be sold based on traffic/revenue stats, but it does help when dealing with the more refined niche geo domains that have a harder time selling without buyer incentive. It also helps when selling a geo to a small business if you are confident and knowledgeable about what you are selling. Developing a geo domain allows you to attain hands-on experience that will pass on to your personal knowledge base and make your sales pitch more fluid and convincing.

The bottom line is that it's easier to sell something we have used and researched than it is to sell something we've never experienced.

It's true that Geo domain traffic is normally more micro-niche based. While you may only get 10 to 100 visitors for some geo-target keyphrases per month, generally, the conversion rate is triple that of a broader less targeted campaign.

You can experiment with new gTLD geo's all you want. I encourage it. However, It's my opinion that one should first master a geo .com for the experience before attempting a new gTLD geo.

The geo .com's are still readily available for various sub-niche product/service industries.

I hope that helps clarify a bit more.

 

[168]

I didn't expect much interest in the New "G"s at first but I'm getting queries from end users. In relation to the .work example I have had queries to list RN jobs on my New "G" geos. Because of the interest they are now on the top of my list
2 contacts on a geo product. Beverage/Finance. Don't have geo's in .coms so I can't compare.
If I were to look for work in Huston my first thought would be to search for: Jobs, Huston Texas. or Huston Texas, Jobs
I like aramus suggestion for New "G"s. Development.
Takes the "unknown" out of the equation and after the cash flow the sale is a bonus.
Cheers

 

[aramyus]

They don't have to be sold based on traffic/revenue stats

Thanks for your answer.

Let me try to rephrase my point.

For me a domain like DallasTattoo.com has a good intrinsic value because both Dallas and Tattoo are very desirable. It can certainly be sold as is.

On an other hand, MercedTattoo.com (currently available for reg) has very little value because Merced is a much smaller city, and probably there is not much competition between the tattoo shops. I suppose having (real) traffic is the only way to sell such a domain. I thought it was what you were implying in your articles.

Let us see if the domain will be still available for free in a few days. It will be a good test for it's intrinsic value

 

[HotKey]

Interesting, thanks.

Personally, I ccTLD's should always be the first go-to extension when considering "geo" targets. Com's or G's really are for a broader, more international appeal. Sure this could change, but what's the point of powerhouse companies limiting themselves to a geo oriented com or G if they truly are looking to expand their borders? Why not just a complete brand-name, rather than the geo limitation?

When I see an in-town company forgoing their local appeal in a name and hitting it nationally or internationally, it may impact my decision to visit there. Almost like a "made in China" effect.

But pitting geo-Com's vs geo-G's, I think the better fit is com.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Interesting, thanks.

Personally, I ccTLD's should always be the first go-to extension when considering "geo" targets. Com's or G's really are for a broader, more international appeal. Sure this could change, but what's the point of powerhouse companies limiting themselves to a geo oriented com or G if they truly are looking to expand their borders? Why not just a complete brand-name, rather than the geo limitation?

When I see an in-town company forgoing their local appeal in a name and hitting it nationally or internationally, it may impact my decision to visit there. Almost like a "made in China" effect.

But pitting geo-Com's vs geo-G's, I think the better fit is com.

Personally, I feel that the ccTLD geo choice is used more by the small mom and pop shops than the deep-pocketed corps. I completely agree that a ccTLD geo could be the next best choice for a mom and pop that can't afford the .com and only wanting to target locals.

Comparing Geo .com to Geo .ccTLD will have to be a different article topic for me in the future I think.

 

[namezest]

The .travel extension seems to do well on searches, try searching San Francisco or Las Vegas the .travel domains actually come top in searches which surprised me. Like you Eric I'm in Texas and have developed in the past local service type domains that did extremely well. They were .com I personally avoided ngtld geo domains for the most part but it does seem that the new (as you mentioned) keyword extensions are performing well and it seems now start up's in particular are favoring new gtls over .com domains that are already registered and therefore more expensive. I personally don't see that trend changing.
In fact I think as people learn about and feel more comfortable with the newer extensions .com prices will have to lower prices or lose potential end users.

That's just my opinion and based on what I have noticed however I can not speak for everyone there, just myself.

 

[Eric Lyon]

The .travel extension seems to do well on searches, try searching San Francisco or Las Vegas the .travel domains actually come top in searches which surprised me. Like you Eric I'm in Texas and have developed in the past local service type domains that did extremely well. They were .com I personally avoided ngtld geo domains for the most part but it does seem that the new (as you mentioned) keyword extensions are performing well and it seems now start up's in particular are favoring new gtls over .com domains that are already registered and therefore more expensive. I personally don't see that trend changing.
In fact I think as people learn about and feel more comfortable with the newer extensions .com prices will have to lower prices or lose potential end users.

That's just my opinion and based on what I have noticed however I can not speak for everyone there, just myself.

I agree, some new gTLD developments I have seen fared ok against older gTLD's. However, keep in mind that Google confirmed that new gTLDs have no added value/consideration in search indexing when it comes to seo/sem. In the eyes of the Googles algorithm, all gTLD extensions are created equal. There are a lot of other variables at play that add value to seo/sem campaigns, however, the extension itself (Even keyword targeted extensions) do not seem to increase seo/sem potential.

 

[HotKey]

City targeted gTLD's will be interesting to monitor for usage over the coming years. For example .berlin, .nyc, .wales, .quebec. I think they could work well with generic names like tourism, parks, transportation, arts, food, hotels, shopping, etc

I have not invested in any of those...the name range is virtually unlimited, and adoption might go the way as the .info extension. Although since they are more specific, they are more attractive. Concentrate on a niche that the city is known for, perhaps romance.paris or cycling.paris.

 

[Eric Lyon]

City targeted gTLD's will be interesting to monitor for usage over the coming years. For example .berlin, .nyc, .wales, .quebec. I think they could work well with generic names like tourism, parks, transportation, arts, food, hotels, shopping, etc

I have not invested in any of those...the name range is virtually unlimited, and adoption might go the way as the .info extension. Although since they are more specific, they are more attractive. Concentrate on a niche that the city is known for, perhaps romance.paris or cycling.paris.

I think with gTLD's like .berlin, they should be approached like the ccTLD version and language should remain a huge factor. A common mistake I see a lot is people registering non-English ccTLDs or new gTLDs using English targeted phrases and then wondering why there value isn't very good. In short, in your example with .berlin, german/dutch should be before the extension to make it more attractive. The only exception to that might be the travel industry catering to English speaking tourists.

 

[HotKey]

I think with gTLD's like .berlin, they should be approached like the ccTLD version and language should remain a huge factor. A common mistake I see a lot is people registering non-English ccTLDs or new gTLDs using English targeted phrases and then wondering why there value isn't very good. In short, in your example with .berlin, german/dutch should be before the extension to make it more attractive. The only exception to that might be the travel industry catering to English speaking tourists.

I see..yes. There will always be exceptions of course. Who discovers them remains to be seen.. Speaking of tourism, take into consideration English is (edit)third-most spoken language on earth, and how many millions of those are tourists..

 

[namezest]

I think we all know the net is expanding, and that many of them extensions will, fail. That being said however many of them are actually doing well and with no advertising, maybe it's a case of get the right combos and get them first, like the .com addresses people who missed the boat had to become clever finding the right balance of keyword/keyword. Yes there are still good com domain unregistered but the new gtlds for the most part have a lot more available that seems to be the primary advantage to them. Don't forget many good coms are held by early birds who already own some impressive portfolios and they wont let them go cheap. But 185k getting you your own extension with every possible combination at your disposal is WAY better value than spending big cash on a dot com. Investors already know this that's probably why there are so many new ones now....

 

[HotKey]

Getting your own extension might work better for an in-house brand like Pepsi, where you can be sure of its longetivity as a brand. As a geo, Texas.Work works better than Home.TexasWork, and it's not a brand that is limited to one company. So it's possible to resell.

Shouldn't running your own extension get cheaper?- the arrival of the Digital age promise us reduced cost in everything?--pack of lies!!

 

[platey]

I agree, some new gTLD developments I have seen fared ok against older gTLD's. However, keep in mind that Google confirmed that new gTLDs have no added value/consideration in search indexing when it comes to seo/sem. In the eyes of the Googles algorithm, all gTLD extensions are created equal. There are a lot of other variables at play that add value to seo/sem campaigns, however, the extension itself (Even keyword targeted extensions) do not seem to increase seo/sem potential.

The difficulty with new gtlds is that they are still so very new and not many people recognise them although as people start seeing new gtlds appearing in Google search results people outside the domaining industry will start to understand the possible new gold variations

But no one tried to buy the. Com part of a domain to use it to rank in Google under. Com because who types com in to Google but people buy new gtlds to use the gold to rank in the gold category too in Google

But geo product / service domains are becoming much more popular and as they become more popular the businesses in to use your example eg Houston etc are effectively doing a domain era job for them as businesses that have geo product or service etc will advertise their website on their vans trucks etc as they deliver their product and or service

Even geo product service domains tho using organic seo without ppc will only get slightly above halfway up the first page of Google because ppc listings usually take up the first 4 to 5 listings now in Google search rankings

In the uk geo product or service works better in. Co.uk and .uk as I own a few