.tv Has the .tv market peaked?

[snoop]

I think we are seeing numerous signs to suggest the .tv may have peaked. From what I can see of it, it is fairly common for relaunched/new tlds prices peak to at the time of the major auction, when speculator interest is at its highest, and you have a whole lot of people in the market who wouldn’t normally dabble in it. I’m not sure .tv will be an exception to this rule.

The only thing to change is there is now a large number of names in the market with genuine, real value, much like other extensions. In other words it is now on a level playfield in that respect but it is still only that, "level", not tilted upwards. The exuberance has carried over into a lot of unrealistic viewpoints recently in my view,

eg

-People claim this market is just starting to warm up and will be much stronger in a year. (we’ve heard that before)
-The idea that many of these premiums will be developed (of course that will never happen and is setting the scene for later disappointment).
-People talking about “trying to keep the momentum going” and trying to organize group auctions (as though this is an engine that constantly needs top ups of fuel to prevent breakdown).
-People talking about future .tv millionaires.
-World economies seeing another shock spreading out from Europe.


If you look back a month ago that really was a market with a lot of positive elements rolled into, many factors combining that may never be repeated.

So I put this question out there, do you think the .tv market has peaked?

 

[DotUSDomains]

when nba advertises nba.tv it forwards to .com

Always been the case ?

 

[Kate]

nba.tv => Welcome - NBA 2010 Live! for me

 

[gr8trfoo]

Maybe, maybe not.

maybe/maybe not??? what kind of answer is that? i'll ask again: CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING THAT CANNOT BE REPRESENTED USING A VIDEO?

I don't need a purpose-specific TLD for that.

i dont think you are being serious. it seems like you just have a bone to pick. why i dont know.

ok - lets say you dont NEED a .tv. but if you wanted to pitch a product using video WHY WOULDNT you want to use a .tv? becasue its "purpose-specific"??? when the purpose is to brand video sites??? am i really hearing you correctly?

Hint: there is money in ccTLDs. But in the more established ones, not those that are vanity items.

vanity ones? ok - i get it. you really arnt serious, you just want to sling mud on .tv and are ready to say anything you can to make it seem shabby. granted .tv has its faults/issues - what tld doesnt - and i'm happy to discuss its shortcomings as well as its brilliant points. but i come to np to engage in serious conversation with open-minded, business-minded individuals and obviously you are not one. good bye.

 

[snoop]

look snoop - one last time: .tv is about online video, thats the branding power it has as i see it. can we agree on this point or not?

I think it is about online video and websites for tv shows/networks, but the point of discussion was about you saying "wait another 10 years" as opposed to a discussion about what .tv is used for. I'm saying people are mad to keep stretching out the amount of time they will wait for this extension to work for them. Find a model that works now.

if yes then why is it so hard to accept the fact that online video is just now begining to become competetive with offline sources? 10 years ago there just wasnt enough bandwidth and processing power widely available to make good use of online video. its still pretty choppy today. i say that in 10 years the advances in online video technology will blow us all away. this DOES NOT neccesarily mean good things for .tv but it doesnt seem like it will hurt.

That is the thing, it is a bit like the many people would assume .mobi is going to do well as the mobile Internet expands. Online video is already huge, .tv isn't. You don't need a special extension for video content, it has no real benefit, the vast majority just use regular extensions.

i would hardly call a .tv for online video mediocre. quite the opposite. a .vid would be mediocre, but if .tv didnt exist and thats what there was maybe users would buy it, i dont know.

Prices are low, usage is low, that is mediocre, it isn't a strong extension.

again - its about online video. and too TV is pretty much universally recognized as "television". i dont see how it could be any more mainstream than that but maybe you have a different definition?? luv to hear it.

The dicussion isn't about whether television is mainsteam, the discussion is whether .tv is mainstream, it isn't. The mainstream extension for online video is .com and local country codes. Much like the minstream extension for mobile content isn't .mobi. It is a niche, an alt extension.

but i wouldnt characterize my overall interest in .tv as speculative. i have distinct plans for mine and the vast majority of my .tv's are not for sale AT ANY PRICE. i would advise anyone considering speculative purchasing to think twice.

See it for that it is, you have a tonne of .tv that are being used for nothing, with no revenue and costing alot in reg fees in the hope of price growth. There is nothing wrong with that but see it for what it is- speculation.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

.tv is here and it ain't going away.

We(the naysayers, cheerleaders, speculators and the like) will be long gone and .tv will still be here in cyberspace...just like it should be, so the weeping and gnashing of naysayer teeth amuses me more than upsets me. Weep on...

Another example of a counter argument to claims nobody is actally making. After 14 years it obvious the extension isn't going away.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

ok - lets say you dont NEED a .tv. but if you wanted to pitch a product using video WHY WOULDNT you want to use a .tv? becasue its "purpose-specific"??? when the purpose is to brand video sites??? am i really hearing you correctly?

Most people would use .com or a local country code, and that is what consumers would expect the site to be on aswell.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

but i come to np to engage in serious conversation with open-minded, business-minded individuals and obviously you are not one. good bye.

I think the issue may be that you can't have a debate without resorting insults, flaming & personal jabs. Were you the one who added all the silly tags to this thread? Wouldn't surprise me if it was.

 

[gr8trfoo]

the point of discussion was about you saying "wait another 10 years" as opposed to a discussion about what .tv is used for.
...
Find a model that works now.

no need to wait 10 years, .tv is useful now.

whether that works for speculators is something else altogether. i agree with you and always have that this is not a domain for domainers.

I think it is about online video and websites for tv shows/networks

well snoop, i have news for you - "tv shows" will eventually, and not too far away, be primarily distributed via internet. think whatever you like but thats the way it is.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

That is the thing, it is a bit like the many people would assume .mobi is going to do well as the mobile Internet expands. Online video is already huge, .tv isn't. You don't need a special extension for video content, it has no real benefit, the vast majority just use regular extensions.

the thing is that .mobi never meant anything to people, probably never will. .tv does have meaning. it also has benefits. branding benefits. for what i plan i wouldnt even try to do with .com's - even if i could have afforded them, which i couldnt have even if they had been available.

and online video isnt nearly as big as it will be.

That is the thing, it is a bit like the many people would assume .mobi is going to do well as the mobile Internet expands. Online video is already huge, .tv isn't. You don't need a special extension for video content, it has no real benefit, the vast majority just use regular extensions.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

Prices are low, usage is low, that is mediocre, it isn't a strong extension.

usage is growing.

and since when do domainer prices determine the usefullnes of a domain for branding purposes? if anything the low market price works in favor of .tv for end use.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

The dicussion isn't about whether television is mainsteam, the discussion is whether .tv is mainstream, it isn't. The mainstream extension for online video is .com and local country codes. Much like the minstream extension for mobile content isn't .mobi. It is a niche, an alt extension.

so you say. i say you are making a spurious argument with no substance. you're all talk snoop and talk is cheap.

 

[snoop]

no need to wait 10 years, .tv is useful now.

You are the one talking about waiting 10 years in posts above.

well snoop, i have news for you - "tv shows" will eventually, and not too far away, be primarily distributed via internet. think whatever you like but thats the way it is.

I don't see how that change would help .tv speculators. The Simpsons is distributed online therefore golfshoes.tv is a good name? Once again it is the old .mobi mantra,

"How can you be against .mobi, don't you think the mobile internet is going to grow?"

Increase in video on the internet is not the same thing a .tv speculators doing well. Look how it has played out already (over the last 10 years). Online video has exploded, whilst .tv speculators have mainly done quite poorly.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

the thing is that .mobi never meant anything to people, probably never will. .tv does have meaning.

Domainers always think up some "important difference". The .mobi people made up all sorts of reasons why it was different to .biz and .info. The .biz and .info people explained why those extensions were different to .ws and .cc. Usually much the same factors are at play, most companies uses domains either in .com or their local country code.

.tv, .mobi offers no real benefit to 99.9% of people.

usage is growing.

Of course, but after 14 years it isn't exactly seen on every second bill board, the extension is small time. Every extension is growing in usage.

and since when do domainer prices determine the usefullnes of a domain for branding purposes? if anything the low market price works in favor of .tv for end use.

Never said it did, I simply said domainers had done poorly from it.

 

[gr8trfoo]

I think the issue may be that you can't have a debate without resorting insults, flaming & personal jabs. Were you the one who added all the silly tags to this thread? Wouldn't surprise me if it was.

i call it as i see it. if you're insulted by me calling you on your bs thats tough.

i belive the only time i've ever resorted to "flames" or "personal jabs" was in direct reply to your affrontations. yeah, i get po'd when you act like you think you know something about me. and ESPECIALLY when you called me a liar about having been a .com domainer for more than 10 years. and then after i proved i have been did you apologize? were you the leat bit embarassed? hell no - you proceded to insult me for having regd names that wernt valuable (iyo).

as i see it you consistently misrepresent, twist and omit facts and details to prop up your arguments. does my saying that insult you. then stop doing it.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

See it for that it is, you have a tonne of .tv that are being used for nothing, with no revenue and costing alot in reg fees in the hope of price growth. There is nothing wrong with that but see it for what it is- speculation.

now whos being insulting? how is it you feel its ok to pretend to know what my motives are?

i dropped most of my speculative positions long ago. i had about 12,000 .tv's for awhile, now i have about 3000 but only a couple hundred i'm holding for speculation. the rest have a planned use. its hardly price increase i'm looking for, i'm after something far far greater.

 

[snoop]

and ESPECIALLY when you called me a liar about having been a .com domainer for more than 10 years. and then after i proved i have been did you apologize? were you the leat bit embarassed? hell no - you proceded to insult me for having regd names that wernt valuable (iyo).

As each month goes by you like to water down you prior claims further and further.

The bold claims weren't about being .com domainer for 10 years.

Here is a list of the claims made,

-You claimed to have been one of the first to catch drops, many of such names would now be worth "6 figures".
-Claimed to have competed with Yun Ye.
-Claimed to be friends with famous domainers.
-Claimed to have ran a major parking service (which was so major that it is now park page itself ironically).

After 8 months of me questioning you on these names you caught the best you could come out with was a name that would be lucky to be worth 3 figures today but for the fact that someone developed it after you sold it.

 

[gr8trfoo]

Never said it did, I simply said domainers had done poorly from it.

well what are we arguing about then? i agree.

 

[snoop]

now whos being insulting? how is it you feel its ok to pretend to know what my motives are?

i dropped most of my speculative positions long ago. i had about 12,000 .tv's for awhile, now i have about 3000 but only a couple hundred i'm holding for speculation. the rest have a planned use. its hardly price increase i'm looking for, i'm after something far far greater.

It isn't an insult, just calling it what it is. When someone owns thousands of domains that they don't do anything with it is speculation. Nothing wrong with that but to suggest otherwise is putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[gr8trfoo]

When someone owns thousands of domains that they don't do anything with it is speculation.

you just think you know everything snoop. and sadly that may not be your biggest problem.

if it is speculation in any form its speculating on myself - on my ability to turn my collection into a global gamechanger. but i hardly expect someone who has expressed such a limited view of the inherent value of .tv to understand that. fortunately what you think has no negative bearing on me.

As each month goes by you like to water down you prior claims further and further.

The bold claims weren't about being .com domainer for 10 years.

Here is a list of the claims made,

-You claimed to have been one of the first to catch drops, many of such names would now be worth "6 figures".
-Claimed to have competed with Yun Ye.
-Claimed to be friends with famous domainers.
-Claimed to have ran a major parking service (which was so major that it is now park page itself ironically).

After 8 months of me questioning you on these names you caught the best you could come out with was a name that would be lucky to be worth 3 figures today but for the fact that someone developed it after you sold it.

after 8 months of weaseling out on a perfectly valid wager is more like it.

you are so twisting it again, making my previous point perfectly.

let me set the record straight:

first, you started it all by responding to someone elses post about me by saying that you wernt aware of me being a .com'r, that you've never heard of me other than as someone posting about .tv. i went on to provide a small bit of factual biography so everyone could understand better where i'm coming from. thats when you started acting like a jerk and challenging me on my statements - which seemed to me then and still does as utterly ridiculous not to mention downright rude.

i never said i was one of the first to catch drops. i started in 1999 and thats hardly ahead of the pack.

what i did say was that your bs about .tv reminded me of the same bs people were saying about .com back when i got in. and furthermore a lot of those names that were caught back then are worth 6 figures now (or at least when i said that - values have come down a bit across the board, eh?). i never said that i caught a lot of those 6 figs - i've always let it be known that other drop-catchers, ESPECIALLY yun ye, were better than me. of course i only knew him as "No Name" back then. very tight lipped dude.

freinds with famous domainers, umm, i'm kind of famous myself there little dude. take a look at the pictures again (becasue we all know several of them have been posted here and you no doubt have seen them - so what are you goig on about i dont know). however i've never seen any pictures of you?

here's ron jackson's (definitely a friend of mine) write up of a 2007 traffic show, one that i sponsored:
http://www.dnjournal.com/cover/2007/march-fullbackup.htm

i gaurantee i know at least half of the domainers that attended that show. and they know me.

finally, i dont belive i ever said klickerz was a "major" parking company. and yes its terrible that its nothing but a parking page now. it could have been so much more. it never was *MY* company, it was organized as a cooperative and could have been *YOUR* company, literally, - but you were to busy acting like a major hole when i tried to present it to people on your former forum. you kicked me off the first week for making "commercial" posts. you guys deserve to be less wealthy.

so its not only terrible - its tragic. my wife died just as it was starting to catch traction and i lost a lot of my interest. i tried to keep it going but i was already stretched too thin. took me more than a year to shake off the grief and i found that only getting back to the domain hunt gave me any joy and trying to manage parking was a bore.

still, the fundemental idea was sound. if we domainers had pooled our traffic together we might not be under googles thumb today. we had the numbers (15-20% of the top quality traffic). maybe its not too late but i'm not going to try to run it.

so if that doesnt set the record straight once and for all i dont think it ever can be.

btw, i sold that name (that you est to be worth $100) for twice what you were asking for healthcare.net. fact. hence my advice to all - when you have an end-user on the line hold out for top dollar! if they didnt want the name they wouldnt be calling.

 

[snoop]

if it is speculation in any form its speculating on myself - on my ability to turn my collection into a global gamechanger. but i hardly expect someone who has expressed such a limited view of the inherent value of .tv to understand that. fortunately what you think has no negative bearing on me.

Agree with most of these points. Lets look at from a distance here.

You had 11,000 names, you dropped 7,000. You've lost half a million dollars .tv. Now you tell us the names you still own are for something more than speculation - depsite doing nothing with them. Most accountants would tell you either to pack it in or change the model very significantly. I guess the greatest arrogance is thinking you are right when the numbers show otherwise.

Now my view is limited, because I see the obvious only, and I see no obvious model in trying to do something with 4000 names, it is too many names. If you can turn around your fortunes in .tv, good luck, personally I think you are probably throwing good money after bad, but as you say, you aren't listening to me.

 

[gr8trfoo]

Agree with most of these points.

:O

You had 11,000 names, you dropped 7,000.

see. right away you jump to the most linear of conclusions. again you are wrong.

i dropped more than 7000. i bought new different ones. i only kept about a thousand from the first wave.

Most accountants would tell you either to pack it in or change the model very significantly.

you are still assuming what the model is.

I guess the greatest arrogance is thinking you are right when the numbers show otherwise.

the numbers that matter are not in yet.



thats all the time i have for this discussion. good luck.

 

[snoop]

the numbers that matter are not in yet.

That's how it always is, put it off!

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------

i dropped more than 7000. i bought new different ones. i only kept about a thousand from the first wave.

So 10,000 dropped? Awful.

 

[hawkeye]

"Great show.., great!!"

 

[Kate]

usage is growing.

You sure about that ?

and since when do domainer prices determine the usefullnes of a domain for branding purposes? if anything the low market price works in favor of .tv for end use.

The aftermarket tells a lot about the popularity of an extension. When an extension is popular among end users, a secondary market naturally emerges. Likewise, infrequent sales suggest that there is little demand and transactions are scarce. Obviously some extensions have more sales than others.

 

[snoop]

You sure about that ?

I think it is myself, but there is no data on it either. I would say 98% of extensions are probably growing. I would think the only ones not growing in terms of usage is extensions that are being phased outm .su etc.

The aftermarket tells a lot about the popularity of an extension. When an extension is popular among end users, a secondary market naturally emerges. Likewise, infrequent sales suggest that there is little demand and transactions are scarce. Obviously some extensions have more sales than others.

Agree, it is all related. Low prices in the aftermarket is due to domainers thinking the names do not have strong enduser potential.

 

[GoneWalkabout]

Finster

That was a great read and, having looked at those old photos, an 'awesome' beard.

I've heard on the grapevine that the beard has gone but your friendly 'wager' to snoop still remains.

What a shame he fails to have the cojones to take you up on it.



Oh, and yes, like Snoop says, the Tv market has certainly peaked. This is proven, no doubt, by the shameful dumping this week of names like Bremen ($10k), Bahamas ($10k) and dozens of other similar $xxxx firesales.

Take Snoop's advice - stay away from .TV - it might make your hips move!!!!!!!!!!!:yell:

 

[donnied79]

nba.tv => Welcome - NBA 2010 Live! for me

What matters is the BRAND and what they choose to advertise to a WORLDWIDE audience.
A redirect is something 99% of internet users don't know about. They know they are going to nba.TV to watch the matches with their pc.

 

[Kate]

Oh, and yes, like Snoop says, the Tv market has certainly peaked. This is proven, no doubt, by the shameful dumping this week of names like Bremen ($10k), Bahamas ($10k) and dozens of other similar $xxxx firesales.

Such sales are welcome, because they instil hope. But they don't happen every week. You see sales like that more often in other ccTLDs.

What matters is the BRAND and what they choose to advertise to a WORLDWIDE audience.
A redirect is something 99% of internet users don't know about. They know they are going to nba.TV to watch the matches with their pc.

The very same argument was made about .mobi. In this case it looks like the .tv actually performs as a URL shortener. But I'm nonetheless willing to accept your point.