opinion How well are the new extensions doing?

[jamesosix]

Hi,

Just searching for a domain and see name.word is available. What is the general consensus to date on the new domain extensions (.shop, .online, .garden etc etc). Are they selling? Are they not worth the time? I am very interested to see what the professionals think.

Thanks

 

[Kate]

Reviewing the reported sales would be a good start. They will tell you all you need to know

 

[JB Lions]

Bob just came out with a new article:

"67 NameBio recorded ngTLD sales in the 30 day period, with $180,800 total sale volume."

"This is the lowest number of sales for a number of months"

https://nametalent.com/2018/10/recent-new-extensions-domain-sales-actionable-insights/

If you're getting offers on them, sell.

 

[garptrader]

Most of the newer extensions were released in 2014 or 2015 so in late 2018 they have been around at least a few years. How old can the following be and still be considered new? (My guess)

-pair of running shoes (a month)
-laptop computer (a few months)
-sports car (3-6 months)
-condo/house (one year)

So when do we stop calling the extensions released from 2014+ "new'?

 

[wwwweb]

The issue with GTLD’s is the governance within those contracts, that they can increase the price by whatever they want, effectively being able to extract back a domain over time from a registrant by making it unrealistic for them to pay for their renewals.

I have seen renewals as high as $60,000 per year from some registries, every keyword has an attached renewal value. Whereas .com, and most other extensions all work with the same base renewal, and the market sets the price based on the character make up of the domain. This is a more natural, and organic system of
doing things with less likelihood of manipulation.

LOL Warrior lives up to his name, by presenting a lot of talking points, but not much in the way of sales data from his actual portfolio.

The GTLD market is further flawed with many registries taking back drops, and attaching higher premiums for a direct market channel.

As well marketing for new gtlds has gone cold, the registries are not enabling their budgets to burn cash marketing these extensions anymore.

The allure of a new gtld is great for newbies alike, as they think they are on the forefront of something great, nobody knows about, but we are going into the 5th year of these launches and many of the pioneers have already bled thru their portfolios as they were not able to keep up with premium renewals.

 

[Brands.International]

There is absolutely no consensus to date. Those who invested in new extensions and did not make too many initial mistakes (usually) like them, those who hold other investments or missed the boat or invested incorrectly in them might not like them or might even hate them in some instances. And lot of variations of opinions in between.

Also, new extensions means set of several hundreds of different extensions, registries, policies, etc, all with different performance as investment so far..so it would be very gross and innaccurate generalisation to speak about 'new extensions' without really distinguishing between them on various levels (pricing, availability, renewals, user adoption, registry premium names, may other factors).

Read the forum extensively and form your own opinion, we have hundreds of threads here about that. Without extensive reading, no one will or can trully help you with this question in one single post, imo

 

[Internet.Domains]

On Wall Street they would call it a "bear market" in regards to the New G's.

 

[Rob Monster]

After the Uniregistry 30X price increase event, it is clear that new TLDs have massive counter-party risk implied in their unregulated ability to increase prices effectively making it possible for a power move to regain control of an entire TLD. I thought it was an edge case until it actually happened.

By way of parallel, cryptocurrencies with limited adoption have a "Byzantine Generals Problem" where a Blockchain can be effectively hijacked by superiority of stake or computational power. It is a design flaw that Blockchain designers are always working to solve. There are few easy solutions but in time I suspect it gets solved as the pros outweigh the cons in terms of the utility of the concept.

The parallel is relevant. Why? Because the lack of governance by emerging cryptos has made BTC supreme with 54% of the market cap covered just by BTC even though BTC is a terrible choice for most transactions and its main utility is as store of value. We have the same with domains where .COM dominates. It dominates because most new TLDs are poorly marketed and some are poorly governed.

In short, the new TLDs have a confidence problem. Many of them are treading water. Donuts has scale and capital so it can milk brand protection but usage in the wild is still low. How to solve it? New TLD registraions should pivot from being an option into being an asset. Right now if you buy a domain, you are effectively buying a call option on the future value of the domain. However if registries simply let speculators own the domain, time would no longer working against them. You could buy and hold. We need that now.

More here:

https://epik.com/blog/forever-domain-registrations.html

The registries can be contacted. Most of them are run by rational people who will dread the idea of seeing their registration count peak. That is precisely why I foresee a new pricing model and it will logically start with new TLDs as they have the most to gain, and also the most to lose if adoption stalls out.

 

[Brands.International]

On Wall Street they would call it a "bear market" in regards to the New G's.

Now the question is: is it good to buy or sell on a "bear market" ? Many guys, they do not manage their renewals correctly, and so they NEED to sell within a year or two. While maybe it still is a best time to buy instead.

I always cringe when I see someone trying to flip some not even good new gTLD domain within a year timeframe, particularly when extension of that domain name is not even a 1 year old...so there is no aftermarket formed yet...it might easily take 5-10 years for that aftermarket to be formed. The name of the game is to get best possible inventory and make it self-sustainable.

At the end, all investments are about corect timing of buy/sell. But as I said, there is no consensus whatsoever and everyone approaches this differently.

 

[Internet.Domains]

I would conclude that no one really knows what will be in 10 years. Many things are uncertain with new gTLDs. Only this much is clear

Ten years ago if someone mentioned Google and Amazon would be using extensions other than .com, .net and .org they would think you hit your head hard.

 

[Brands.International]

Ten years ago if someone mentioned Google and Amazon would be using extensions other than .com, .net and .org they would think you hit your head hard.

That is very true

 

[JB Lions]

I did not use the word "consumer facing" in my comment. My point is both of those companies are using the new extensions in some sort of manner.

I know, point is they need to be in front of consumers to gain traction. And yes, they use them, many times just as redirects tho.

 

[Kate]

I don't expect most big companies to ever go away from .com as their major company website (I could be wrong, of course!). What I think we may see is them use other extensions for marketing purposes as Apple did with experience.

Why not ?
I think that corpTLD applicants 'should' use their extensions heavily, after all they applied for them, and paid dearly. Otherwise what's the point.

If they keep using them for ancillary projects, they will forever send the signal that these names are not good enough to host their main sites and thus inferior to .com.
Consumers are not stupid, they notice that. So they are not impressed by new extensions, because they see the reluctance even from their biggest proponents.
To me that is the most surprising aspect of the nTLD program. Failure from their own applicants to embrace them.

And just because a large company uses a nTLD does not mean every consumer suddenly wants one.

Redirecting nTLDs to .com domains depreciates them too: nTLD = redirect = gadget.

Some 5 years ago pundits announced a seismic shift in the domain space. It hasn't happened.
.com is still doing strong
nTLDs aren't gaining much traction nor going mainstream like some predicted
Many corpTLD applicants are giving up: https://www.namepros.com/threads/list-of-retired-new-extensions.991424/

I am not against the principle of new extensions. But the program has been poorly carried out. It was just a money grab. Lots of non-viable extensions were released.
That created uncertainty and even desperation. Some registries have hiked prices dramatically, they are trying to make money out of unprofitable extensions because the demand isn't there, and the volume isn't there.
Who wants to build an online presence on an extension that is on shaky ground. And could disappear in a few years.

 

[Kate]

I think if new gTLDs were not here, .mobi would have maybe 20x more value...

.mobi crashed on its own in 2008, after two years of hype (and sustained sales). That was well before the flood of new extensions. But it is true that some of the less solid extensions have suffered from the newly-arrived competition.

Since Google is behind it, wouldn’t surprise me.

.mobi was backed by Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Visa... a mobile phone button does not suffice
https://www.namepros.com/threads/new-samsung-phone-has-mobi-button.571489/

 

[gilescoley]

Besides a few sales here and there (.club, .global etc ), most are a waste of time.

Focus on strong extensions

 

[bmugford]

Overall, not good. There is less interest now in most extensions than there was at launch.

In the last year NameBio shows a total of $6M in new extension sales. Pretty marginal numbers, especially considering the vast majority of revenue is also for registry owned domains. Also, a handful of outlier sales at the top make up a large % of the total dollar amount.

Brad

 

[Brands.International]

Most of the newer extensions were released in 2014 or 2015 so in late 2018 they have been around at least a few years. How old can the following be and still be considered new? (My guess)

-pair of running shoes (a month)
-laptop computer (a few months)
-sports car (3-6 months)
-condo/house (one year)

So when do we stop calling the extensions released from 2014+ "new'?

That is a good question But what their alternative name should be? Atm most people call them "new extensions", "new domain names" or "new gTLDs" or "dot brands"...

I like "new gTLDs" the best, but when you speak to normal people outside domaining, it is best to use something like "new domain extensions" imo...

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I too must admit that new seems a name that increasingly is inappropriate as years go by. But the name and ngTLD acronym pretty ingrained. What about novel generic TLDs? Keeps same acronym, slightly nuanced novel vs new?
Bob

PS Of course the sceptics would say call them Nobodys gTLDs

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I am running small new gTLD appraisal thread

Just wanted to say that @lolwarrior is way too humble! He is running a popular and incredibly valuable thread to evaluate ngTLDs. I strongly urge any ngTLDs to visit it. You can learn a lot just by reading through the evaluations, and of course submit as well. I really like his structured approach including all of popularity of term, aesthetics, match with extension, likely selling price, likely time frame and renewal cost.

Thanks so much for the link and perceptive comments @robepik!

Right now if you buy a domain, you are effectively buying a call option on the future value of the domain. However if registries simply let speculators own the domain, time would no longer working against them. You could buy and hold. We need that now.

Like many things in domain investing, I have trouble personally clearly seeing where we will be in 5 yrs, both in ngTLDs but also in the general use country codes and indeed even to some degree the legacy extensions and domains in general. One mistake we sometimes make is to lump the ngTLDs together, but really the characteristics and administration vary rather extensively.

The messages are somewhat mixed in that some of the extensions doing well (at least compared to other ngTLDs) resale wise are somewhat different from those with more promising real world adoption. Ultimately I think those that get used in real websites will become more valuable, but it may be a slow process.

Lots to think about!

Bob

 

[Bob Hawkes]

lots of good feedback here. Thanks guys.

Would you say if the gtld matches well then it may be a worthwhile risk? for example domains like "websites.online" or "flower.garden" etc?

The evidence clearly suggests that a single word and a matching extension is what most often sells, and in that sense the examples you show are indeed strong.

To answer whether they are worthwhile investments, you need to look at probability it will sell, likely net profit from that sale, and the annual costs. While the variables are harder to predict than for .com or even for .net or .org, we do now have more than 5000 ngTLD sales representing more than $20 million in the NameBio database so there is some evidence (see list here). What I would do is to try to find somewhat comparable sales and see if your name is better or worse than these, and try to predict sale prices accordingly. Probability is still challenging to predict.

I think with ngTLDs if you want retail sales you need to be more proactive in promoting the idea of a ngTLD to potential users. Some of the registries are doing this as well, some more effectively than others. You may find this post on why an organization might want a ngTLD helpful in developing your arguments. It also can help you in choosing names to invest in.

Even with .com the typical holding time, if you hold until it sells, is 70 yr (as a famous name in domain investing says, this is a multi-generational enterprise!) and significantly longer in ngTLDs. Your options are either to shorten that by wholesale selling of domain names, or accept it and make sure that renewal costs and likely payoff are enough to win overall in your portfolio.

A long and inconclusive answer..Sorry.

Bob

 

[Internet.Domains]

Now the question is: is it good to buy or sell on a "bear market" ? Many guys, they do not manage their renewals correctly, and so they NEED to sell within a year or two. While maybe it still is a best time to buy instead.

I always cringe when I see someone trying to flip some not even good new gTLD domain within a year timeframe, particularly when extension of that domain name is not even a 1 year old...so there is no aftermarket formed yet...it might easily take 5-10 years for that aftermarket to be formed. The name of the game is to get best possible inventory and make it self-sustainable.

At the end, all investments are about corect timing of buy/sell. But as I said, there is no consensus whatsoever and everyone approaches this differently.

Yes, a "bear market" is still a market. There are sales happening, just not as much as a "bull market" would produce. That may or may not change, only time will tell. As a disclaimer I am invested in both .com and New G's.

 

[Brands.International]

I would conclude that no one really knows what will be in 10 years. Many things are uncertain with new gTLDs. Only this much is clear

 

[wwwweb]

I would conclude that no one really knows what will be in 10 years. Many things are uncertain with new gTLDs. Only this much is clear

We are headed into 5 years this February, in the beginning it was give it 3-5 years, and that is exactly what many have done.

I remember the .guru launch, people were buying the big keywords like doctor for day 1 EAP at $12,500 etc.. and there was chaos with registrations being assigned to the wrong backordered parties. People were going to develop their .guru into big things, others were going to start investment portfolios, none of this happend. Sales were good in the early days as nobody knew what was happening, or going to happen.

Radix has always been strong on pricing their renewals, Donuts let some early stuff slip thru, they have fixed those issues, and are now reserving all the good drops. As well as being under new management, I would look for them to find new revenue streams at the expense of their current customer base.

I know many people are hyped about .web, but it is really the same as .net, they mean the same thing, and we all know how good .net is doing.

There was a huge .mobi drop today, nobody cared.

Now if someone is going to take the gtld route, if keyword.direct is taken fine, they can go to keyword.solutions, or keyword.services, the people who are going to pay reg fee, will pay fee. The buyers who need the high match term most of which are held by the early EAP buyers, or the people that bought off the registry reserve list, or the underlying registry themselves are going to get that sale. The domainers who invested across the board are baiscally using their sales to recoup investment fees of losers, and the higher premium model. Some might come out more ahead with a few outliers, but for the most part it's a wash. You can't cover enough ground with a low enough annual renewal, to really get any skin in the game.

 

[Internet.Domains]

And if you say that ten years from now Google will be using their doc.new domain, I would think that person hit his head hard. (Joking, of course.)

The reason issue isn't whether or not Google or Amazon uses the TLD. The real question should be whether Google users and Amazon users use a new TLD. Because those people are likely our future customers in the making.

Regarding, "whether users will use a new TLD."

So far users have shown they will use a New TLD. Google with Doc.New (as you mentioned) and Amazon with Amazon.Jobs. I have not heard of "users" not open to using these domains. The larger issue is awareness and time can perpetually fix that. It should also be noted that many top companies have stashed, for future use, New TLD's. An example being Microsoft with Computer.Systems.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I see that a number of ngTLD sales that fell in the reporting period have been added late to NameBio, and some others in DNJournal but not NameBio, yet at least. I don't go back and insert late additions, but if I did these would make the volume pretty well equal to recent months (but not the number of sales).

Momentum is challenging to define, and clearly evidence can be brought to bear on either side of argument. I would point out that within the last month all of the following happened ....

1. 2nd highest sale ever in .online (design)
2. 2nd highest sale ever in .host (Wiz)
3. highest sale ever in .space (air)
4. highest sale ever in .app (dispatch)
5. 3rd highest sale ever in .network (edge)
6. highest sale ever in .express (service)

So the new extension picture is not totally negative.

Bob