discuss .LINK binge continues

[ThatNameGuy]

".LINK is no worse than .XYZ".....like the .com loyalists despising the .xyz insurgence, the .xyz loyalists despise the .link insurgence.

While most of the really good "single word" .link domains have been registered still a few remain. For example, the day after Thanksgiving I was able to register Thankfulness.link that happens to be no worse than Thankfulness.xyz or Thankfulness.com.

In the way of an update.....domains under management aka DUM has grown from 200,000 to 221,000 since May, and 1,500 of those I've registered. In addition, i have it from some reliable sources that "Good News is Coming"

 

[ThatNameGuy]

It would be interesting to have some feedback/data from a few people with a large (and listed) portfolio of quality ngTLD names. What is their STR like? Average sale price? Total renewal costs? Would be great to be able to make some real comparisons.

There was an experienced member with a sizable ngTLD portfolio who used to post regularly on the Reported Sales thread (he has the bull head avatar). I seem to remember him providing some rough updates on his ngTLD vs .com sales rates and numbers, and the former was usually quite a bit worse, although still in the black overall. I could be remembering wrong.

Even Swetha only reports sales, and never gives us a full picture of expenses and STR. I've always wondered how much she went in the hole on all those .xyz names before starting to see regular large sales. I'm sure she must be in the black on an annual basis now, but by how much? Has she made back all the money invested up front?

Joe...i'm not looking to be like Swetha for I don't understand her business model, assuming its legit. What I do know is that I own hundreds of great names "left of the dot", and if they were all .com's my portfolio would be worth millions. Lets just take Fruit.link for example....like Dollar.com leading to Dollar Rent A Car", Fruit.com leads to "Fruit of the Loom", therefore I'm not competing with either of these .com's if you understand what I'm saying.

Bottomline Joe.......if it's to be, IT'S UP TO ME

 

[Joe N]

Joe....while I may come across as "gimmicky" to you, I've had enough success in my past to add "some" value to any new start up or seasoned business.

We're not talking "rocket science"

I get that your ego probably needs you to believe that, but the reality is that people who buy your domain won't be interested. You're over-complicating things.

If you believe in the .link extension, just buy good names at good prices, and then get the things listed. That's about 95% of it right there.

If you want to go the extra mile with promotion, get yourself active on some social media platforms and put the word out via networking and advertising. But get your landing pages (or a personal marketplace site) set up first, or you'll lose potential buyers.

Forget this whole partnering angle. Forget trying to build businesses on the domanins. Just pick your lane and stick with it. Focus, Rich. Focus.

 

[branding]

Frank Schilling aka Uniregistry pretty much threw in the towel on .LINK

Exactly... The real money in domaining is at the registrar/registry. If they throw in the towel... Abandon the ship while you still can.

 

[jmcc]

Thanks for doing this jmcc, but crunching the back numbers is somewhat superfluous imo.

These numbers are the DNA of the gTLD and show how many potentially high value domain names are still unregistered.

Because Frank Schilling aka Uniregistry pretty much threw in the towel on .LINK in 2017.

Frank made the mistake of thinking like a domainer rather than a registry operator. They are two very different mindsets. The first few years of a new TLD are all about growing the market share and getting web usage/development started. There's also a six month landrush period where people register and flip domain names before registration activity normalises. Because so many premium domain names were held back, the natural landrush never happened. After the first few years of operation, registries tend to make more money from renewals.

The worst thing for domainers and Uniregistry was when Frank increased the prices on the Uniregistry gTLDs. It got the Unireg gTLDs kicked off Godaddy. However, in registry operator terms, it was the correct thing to do given the situation but it could have been handled a lot better with existing registrants being grandfathered in on pricing.

Regards...jmcc

 

[ThatNameGuy]

These numbers are the DNA of the gTLD and show how many potentially high value domain names are still unregistered.

Frank made the mistake of thinking like a domainer rather than a registry operator. They are two very different mindsets. The first few years of a new TLD are all about growing the market share and getting web usage/development started. There's also a six month landrush period where people register and flip domain names before registration activity normalises. Because so many premium domain names were held back, the natural landrush never happened. After the first few years of operation, registries tend to make more money from renewals.

The worst thing for domainers and Uniregistry was when Frank increased the prices on the Uniregistry gTLDs. It got the Unireg gTLDs kicked off Godaddy. However, in registry operator terms, it was the correct thing to do given the situation but it could have been handled a lot better with existing registrants being grandfathered in on pricing.

Regards...jmcc

John....do you remember this from Jeannie McPherson of Verisign a few years ago?

"TurnCommerce and GoDaddy are not the only ones profiting from .com price caps. Domain speculation, or “domain scalping,” as some call it, has become a highly profitable industry unto itself. In fact, one of the top domain name speculators in this market reports a net worth of $500 million. These speculators even have their own lobbying group, the Internet Commerce Association (ICA), where TurnCommerce and GoDaddy are members via their subsidiaries NameBright and Afternic.

Ironically, in this speculators’ market, the price control on .com domain names serves only to reduce the cost of domain names bought by these speculators. Domain speculator Frank Schilling stated that the .com price cap “…has given the [domain speculation] industry a shot in the arm,” in a Jan. 2017 podcast interview. Flipping domain names or warehousing them to create scarcity adds nothing to the industry and merely allows those engaged in this questionable practice to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and businesses."

jmcc....essentially nothing has changed but your and my comments about consumers and businesses being uninformed vs. misinformed are spot on. While I'm a survivor with the tenacity of a Bulldog that laudable goal is attainable. Thanks again

 

[ThatNameGuy]

I get that your ego probably needs you to believe that, but the reality is that people who buy your domain won't be interested. You're over-complicating things.

If you believe in the .link extension, just buy good names at good prices, and then get the things listed. That's about 95% of it right there.

If you want to go the extra mile with promotion, get yourself active on some social media platforms and put the word out via networking and advertising. But get your landing pages (or a personal marketplace site) set up first, or you'll lose potential buyers.

Forget this whole partnering angle. Forget trying to build businesses on the domanins. Just pick your lane and stick with it. Focus, Rich. Focus.

That's good stuff Joe.....i actually owned the domain Focus.golf prior to making my two holes in one in 2021/2022 so I can relate to "Focus"......Thanks

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Exactly... The real money in domaining is at the registrar/registry. If they throw in the towel... Abandon the ship while you still can.

Au contraire.....did you read Hosterstats aka jmcc's take on Schillings mistakes? No two registry owners are alike just like no two gTLD's are alike. I've said before that I'm more of a "turnaround" investor, and you obviously don't see what I see....... .LINK is half full for me

 

[bmugford]

Flipping domain names or warehousing them to create scarcity adds nothing to the industry and merely allows those engaged in this questionable practice to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and businesses."

But Rich, isn't this what you are trying to do as well?

Aren't you buying domains to take them off the market, because you see value in them? Your plans are to eventually profit I assume.

Honestly, who cares what some person from Verisign said. They don't own .COM, they are simply allowed to operate it under a no-bid contract.

It is kind of hilarious Verisign talks about adding "nothing to the industry", when they simply raise prices because they can, by having a monopoly via a no-bid contract.

If the contract was put up for public bidding, there is no shortage of qualified companies who could operate it. The prices would likely come down drastically.

Their entire business model is built on a foundation of crony capitalism, not innovation.

Brad

 

[Joe N]

Flipping domain names or warehousing them to create scarcity adds nothing to the industry and merely allows those engaged in this questionable practice to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and businesses."

jmcc....essentially nothing has changed but your and my comments about consumers and businesses being uninformed vs. misinformed are spot on. While I'm a survivor with the tenacity of a Bulldog that laudable goal is attainable.

Just to clarify:

The goal you're referring to here is to properly inform consumers who have been misinformed about the domain industry?

So by talking to potential customers about this, I assume your hope is to turn their attention away from "overpriced" TLDs like .com and .xyz, and point them in the direction of .link. Is that right?

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Just to clarify:

The goal you're referring to here is to properly inform consumers who have been misinformed about the domain industry?

So by talking to potential customers about this, I assume your hope is to turn their attention away from "overpriced" TLDs like .com and .xyz, and point them in the direction of .link. Is that right?

Not so much misinformed but uninformed. As we already said, the "average" consumer/business doesn't know what the acronym TLD means I know I didn't until I was introduced to this industry five years ago.

My intent is to educate customers about viable alternatives to the "overpriced" TLDs like .com and .xyz and share with them viable alternatives like .online, .net, .org, .co and yes .link

But Rich, isn't this what you are trying to do as well?

Aren't you buying domains to take them off the market, because you see value in them? Your plans are to eventually profit I assume.

Honestly, who cares what some person from Verisign said. They don't own .COM, they are simply allowed to operate it under a no-bid contract.

It is kind of hilarious Verisign talks about adding "nothing to the industry", when they simply raise prices because they can, by having a monopoly via a no-bid contract.

If the contract was put up for public bidding, there is no shortage of qualified companies who could operate it. The prices would likely come down drastically.

Their entire business model is built on a foundation of crony capitalism, not innovation.

Brad

Well Brad.....first there's "reasonable" pricing, and then there's "price absurdity". Take the domain Chocolate.com for example where Hilco Digital is asking 2.5 Million dollars for it. Sure someone like Hershey or Mars or Nestle might be able to afford it, but 90% of others in the Chocolate business/industry could never afford it, and here's where I see opportunity by pricing Chocolate.link at a 99% discount, or $25,000, to Hilco Digital's absurd price of 2.5 Million dollars.

As we're all aware Verisign is talking about the corrupt nature of the "aftermarket" that's unregulated whereas Verisign operates under some degree of regulation despite their appearance.

 

[bmugford]

Well Brad.....first there's "reasonable" pricing, and then there's "price absurdity". Take the domain Chocolate.com for example where Hilco Digital is asking 2.5 Million dollars for it. Sure someone like Hershey or Mars or Nestle might be able to afford it, but 90% of others in the Chocolate business/industry could never afford it, and here's where I see opportunity by pricing Chocolate.link at a 99% discount, or $25,000, to Hilco Digital's absurd price of 2.5 Million dollars.

Who defines what is "reasonable"? You? Me?
That is clearly something that is subjective.

Brad

 

[branding]

Not so much misinformed but uninformed. As we already said, the "average" consumer/business doesn't know what the acronym TLD means I know I didn't until I was introduced to this industry five years ago.

My intent is to educate customers about viable alternatives to the "overpriced" TLDs like .com and .xyz and share with them viable alternatives like .online, .net, .org, .co and yes .link


Well Brad.....first there's "reasonable" pricing, and then there's "price absurdity". Take the domain Chocolate.com for example where Hilco Digital is asking 2.5 Million dollars for it. Sure someone like Hershey or Mars or Nestle might be able to afford it, but 90% of others in the Chocolate business/industry could never afford it, and here's where I see opportunity by pricing Chocolate.link at a 99% discount, or $25,000, to Hilco Digital's absurd price of 2.5 Million dollars.

As we're all aware Verisign is talking about the corrupt nature of the "aftermarket" that's unregulated whereas Verisign operates under some degree of regulation despite their appearance.

2.5M sounds like a decent ask to me... That a huge industry. Also very brandable. Would help the owner to spend some money on SSL certs...

 

[bmugford]

2.5M sounds like a decent ask to me... That a huge industry. Also very brandable. Would help the owner to spend some money on SSL certs...

Yeah, there is only (1) Chocolate.com which is clearly the most desirable domain in the field.
There is no debate about that.

I think the .COM is far more likely to sell for $2.5M than the .LINK is for $25K.

Brad

 

[Joe N]

Not so much misinformed but uninformed. As we already said, the "average" consumer/business doesn't know what the acronym TLD means. I know I didn't until I was introduced to this industry five years ago.

My intent is to educate customers about viable alternatives to the "overpriced" TLDs like .com and .xyz and share with them viable alternatives like .online, .net, .org, .co and yes .link

So you believe that the reason new gTLDs like .link haven't gotten as much uptake is because businesses/consumers:

• aren't aware that they exist; and/or
• aren't aware that they can be used in the same way as a .com name

Besides conversations with people in your own personal circle, have you done any research to suggest that the above is truly the driving factor behind a lack of take-up for most new extensions?

On the flipside, I'll argue that any business owner looking to spend a few thousand on a domain name has likely done some research, and is aware of new extensions and how they're used. If that's the case, it may just be that .com is still the preferred choice because of the authority and brand power that a company gains from using it. The real issue is that people worldwide see .com as the go-to extension, and don't have as much trust in new extensions for a variety of reasons. This trust in .com has been engrained in people for over 20 years, and shifting (or expanding) that trust would take a truly massive marketing and promotional effort. Until that can be achieved, businesses will continue to go where their customers lead them.

What are your thoughts on that?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Must be exhausting to spend all day pretending and arguing that .link is better than .com.

 

[Joe N]

Well Brad.....first there's "reasonable" pricing, and then there's "price absurdity". Take the domain Chocolate.com for example where Hilco Digital is asking 2.5 Million dollars for it. Sure someone like Hershey or Mars or Nestle might be able to afford it, but 90% of others in the Chocolate business/industry could never afford it, and here's where I see opportunity by pricing Chocolate.link at a 99% discount, or $25,000, to Hilco Digital's absurd price of 2.5 Million dollars.

I wonder if you feel the same way about real estate, jewelry, luxury cars, sports collectibles, commodities, or virtually any other good or investment whose value is either based on or influenced by people's demand for it.

 

[Joe N]

Must be exhausting to spend all day pretending and arguing that .link is better than .com.

To be fair to @ThatNameGuy, he has agreed in the past that .com is the better choice. He seems to be trying to make a case for why .link can be a great secondary alternative, and arguing that because of that the extension is a good investment.

 

[Joe N]

@ThatNameGuy - While we're talking about your latest initiative, do you have any updates for us on these ones?

"Simpli"

In the last 24 hours I've registered 50 domains that start with Simpli.........com, from SimpliSexy.com to SimpliDiamonds to SimpliFragrance to SimpliAmazing to SimpliVegas etc.

As an entrepreneur all my life, I know a little about creating markets and setting trends. While naysayers will use every excuse known to man to squash an idea, it's up to others to "Make Something Happen"

.Golf

Speaking of golf...I've now hand registered over 50 word.Golf domains that a registry has agreed to partner with me to help sell at the Worlds Largest Amateur Golf Tournament in Myrtle Beach, SC in August. I'll have a booth displaying my company and my domain business, and it will be manned by a female PGA golf professional who I've also agreed to partner with.

Outbound marketing

Domain professionals here on NP and elsewhere seem to think outbound marketing won't work, although they claim to have tried it, and FAILED miserably. Personally I believe it will work, "if" done right. In my case, the first thing I need to do is attract a savvy technical individual who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

.Club
"if you're trying to tell me the 250+ .Club domains that I recently purchased for $1 each, that appraise for tens of thousands of dollars, and that I also have a business model/plan for, you simpli don't understand anything about risk" (link)

"757"

I recently learned about Geo specific domains and have a portfolio of "757" domains like Welcome757.com, 757Mortgage.com and Ocean757 etc. In about 30 domains that I paid $300 for, I've covered most of the industries that exist within the "757". As such, I plan on taking a similar idea to other regions of the US.

.Homes

I've invested to date less than a thousand dollars for about 90 .homes domains. These domains are in an industry, real estate and home building, that I happen to know a lot about and have a lot of connections. When you combine that with my sales and marketing experience and my 50 years of experience in the NAME business it makes no sense to put my hard earned dollars to work anywhere else.

.Realty

Without going into too much detail I just picked up 55 .realty domains, and I'm seeking other NP members input for speed marketing these domains...

...my main plan is to "outbound market" .realty domains and develop a custom website specifically targeting agents, brokers and new agents.

.Online

I see .online as serious competition for the millions of .com domains hiding in the wine cellar just collecting dust because the average business consumer just can't afford them.

 

[bmugford]

@ThatNameGuy - While we're talking about your latest initiative, do you have any updates for us on these ones?

"Simpli"

.Golf

Outbound marketing


.Club
"if you're trying to tell me the 250+ .Club domains that I recently purchased for $1 each, that appraise for tens of thousands of dollars, and that I also have a business model/plan for, you simpli don't understand anything about risk" (link)

"757"

.Homes

.Realty

.Online

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Must be exhausting to spend all day pretending and arguing that .link is better than .com.

Never said .link is better than .com....see Joe Nichols explanation. I'll be using a lot of quotes like the following seen here when you ask Google "what does a link do";

"A link (short for hyperlink) is an HTML object that allows you to jump to a new location when you click or tap it. Links are found on almost every webpage and provide a simple means of navigating between pages on the web. Links can be attached to text, images, or other HTML elements"

In layman's terms this is sufficient enough explanation to justify .link as an extension imo

 

[ThatNameGuy]

To be fair to @ThatNameGuy, he has agreed in the past that .com is the better choice. He seems to be trying to make a case for why .link can be a great secondary alternative, and arguing that because of that the extension is a good investment.

To be fair you you Joe, your explanation is SPOT ON and I'd give you a "like", if only I could

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I don't do things very often, but when I do I do it 50 times at once every single time.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

So you believe that the reason new gTLDs like .link haven't gotten as much uptake is because businesses/consumers:

• aren't aware that they exist; and/or
• aren't aware that they can be used in the same way as a .com name

Besides conversations with people in your own personal circle, have you done any research to suggest that the above is truly the driving factor behind a lack of take-up for most new extensions?

On the flipside, I'll argue that any business owner looking to spend a few thousand on a domain name has likely done some research, and is aware of new extensions and how they're used. If that's the case, it may just be that .com is still the preferred choice because of the authority and brand power that a company gains from using it. The real issue is that people worldwide see .com as the go-to extension, and don't have as much trust in new extensions for a variety of reasons. This trust in .com has been engrained in people for over 20 years, and shifting (or expanding) that trust would take a truly massive marketing and promotional effort. Until that can be achieved, businesses will continue to go where their customers lead them.

What are your thoughts on that?

Joe, i absolutely believe it. Conversations about domains with people in my own personal circle are non existent. Why? Because most old farts like me haven't a clue about domains. However the last conversation I had with the founder of iApp Systems at the gym revealed that he'd heard of .xyz, but not .link. He was slightly familiar with Snap Names, only because he brought it up.

Do you remember Jeannie McPherson of Verisign saying this about the domain aftermarket?

"But there is also an unregulated secondary market – led by domain speculators – hiding in plain sight. There, some speculators buy domain names at regulated low prices, then sell them at a far higher price. This secondary market is as old as the domain name system itself. However, since the wholesale price cap was imposed on .com in 2012, the secondary market has expanded in ways that exploit consumers."

Finally, i don't know "exactly" what the new owners of .LINK have up their sleeve, but I know they're pretty damn smart. Maybe even smarter than you and Brad together Over the years I've invested in successful "turnarounds" where the Jockey/Jockeys have ridden their new horse/business to victory, and i'm here to cheer them on

 

[ThatNameGuy]

- While we're talking about your latest initiative, do you have any updates for us on these ones?

Joe....it's really freaky how close you follow me. You sort of remind me of those afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome here in America. While I never buy a lottery ticket, I am a calculated risk taker who's not afraid of going out on a limb. That said, I'm a survivor who always has a safety net to fall back on

 

[Joe N]

Joe....it's really freaky how close you follow me. You sort of remind me of those afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome here in America. While I never buy a lottery ticket, I am a calculated risk taker who's not afraid of going out on a limb. That said, I'm a survivor who always has a safety net to fall back on

I always do my research before I discuss a topic, Rich. I can see how that might seem unusual to you.

Have you noticed a pattern in your previous initiatives?