new gtlds Mike Mann: “Read my lips gTLDs are D*E*A*D, absolutely no demand!”

[lennco]

Mike Mann shared on Facebook my article about the bad landrush phase that .Blog domains had last week and also shared his views on the New gTLDs in general:

Read my lips gTLDs are D*E*A*D, absolutely no demand! This was the best out of thousands, along with .web and .app Better luck with other snake oil. .Com stays king. If you also voted for Hillary, rough week. TYVMI.

He also made several other comments about new extensions such as:

How about don’t but them at all, they serve no purpose and cause many problems, and waste a lot of time and money.

Now that everyone knows gTLDs are dead, please Google “Mike Mann gTLDs” and you will see I hit the predictions spot on.

He continued by quoting my article:

Ruggh ruoggh, too many scooby snacks: “So the .blog registry made more than $150,000 from the landrush phase. That doesn’t seem bad but the registry spent $19 million to get rights for the .blog new extension.” Not counting millions per year of overhead. Lesson learned, listen to the mann next time and stick with .Com

He then made more comments like:

“Don't renew your fancy new gtld domains. The experiment is over. No material resale market will take root.”

Mike replied to a comment made by Phil Harris

26 million registered and new sites being launched daily .. X.company being used by Google , Rightside stock just raised to buy status by zachs investment firm .. Awareness growing , secondary 6 figure sales being made , Mike I would say you should watch the movie God is not dead ..

by saying

sure sounds like a bubble

Mike today talked about Google and .soy:

Google spent some energy telling me how ".soy" domain extension was going to be the next big thing a while back, I tried to splain what was up….. Not to discount the fine folks, fancy offices, and great buffet. Googs, gimme a buzz, I’m still a know it all.

Drinking own Koolaid instead of listening to grassroots in the streets

Technically I havent checked the sales numbers but lets take a wild guess, dramatically lower than their expenses…….. like I told them nicely before they invested

Konstantinos Zournas November 14, 2016
http://onlinedomain.com/2016/11/14/...nn-read-lips-gtlds-dead-absolutely-no-demand/

 

[Brands.International]

It's why I'm not touching them. I don't see any good signs. Almost half Chinese and overall numbers already dropping with a lot more coming. Sales? Before these ever came out, I said that I didn't believe there was a real market for them. Some of the "success" stories on stage and here, people were actually losing all kinds of money. But if you're making a profit personally, that's great. Just can't picture why these would go up in value in the future.

Imho big mistake @JB Lions
In few years you will be that you have not invested - it is pity, as I love when people around have prosperous.life

 

[Eric Lyon]

My 2 cents on all of this: Yes change is inevitable. But what that change will be is pure speculation.

I remember people saying the same about .mobi: "Change is inevitable". And change did happen: .mobi went from being arguably valuable to undeniably worthless.

Which brings me to the other saying "History repeats itself":
.COM had to deal with many other extensions after its release. What a lot of people seem to forget is that before the new gTLDs started to launch we already had tons of alternatives to .com. Not a single one of them ever had a negative impact on the power of .com. In fact, .com grew stronger year after year. Why would it be different now? Giving consumers alternatives to .com obviously has been done before. Increasing those alternatives tenfold won't make a difference imo. People will still choose .com (or a ccTLD) over a new gTLD.

There simply was (and is) no real demand for the new gTLDs. It was a money grab by ICANN, nothing else. And you would think registries would at least try to make new gTLDs look more attractive (to try to counter the lack of demand). Yet nothing is further away from the truth with the (mostly) high renewal fees, premium pricing on good keywords, no price protection for existing customers, etc...

The price structure (Call it a conspiracy theory) looks more like an attempt by the registries to thwart/prevent domain cybersquatting by resellers (By having a higher reg/renewal fee) and target end users directly. Now, instead of having to pay $50k+ for a .com from a reseller that could have been registered for $8 to $15, an end user can go direct and get a new gTLD to brand for $25, $150, or $2k+ (Still much cheaper than the reseller/cybersquatter price).

While I do agree that past releases of extensions didn't trump .com, many of them are still thriving and doing well. There's still money to be made with them. The new gTLD's go a step further and focus more on keyword branding than the older releases. The flood of the market (speculations or not) opens up vast new doorways for businesses/products/services/personalities/etc. for a fraction of reseller pricing (Affordability for start-ups).

To dismiss the real world branding potential of the new gTLD's would be a mistake. Not all of them will thrive, however, like their predecessors, many of them will. The more mainstream exposure we see on TV, Radio, Vehicle wraps, News publications, etc. with branded nTLDs, the higher the demand/desire will become for them. Maybe not in a month, a year, or even 5 years, but it will happen. I see mainstream exposure happening more and more every month.

At the end of the day, what works for one won't work for another, so those against nTLD's and only believe .com has value, should stick with what works for them and let other speculators, prospectors, investors, developers, new start-ups, etc. do what works best for their business models (Based on their own targeted research).

Just my personal opinion.

Happy business building everyone.

 

[JB Lions]

Imho big mistake @JB Lions
In few years you will be that you have not invested It is pity, as I love when people have prosperous.life

Prosperous life, invest in what people really want, what there is a market for. You already have new gtlders vanishing from the forum.

 

[JB Lions]

The flood of the market (speculations or not) opens up vast new doorways for businesses/products/services/personalities/etc. for a fraction of reseller pricing (Affordability for start-ups).

You just basically gave a reason why these are bad for domainers. There are a flood of options for people/businesses in these settle for extensions, you don't have much negotiating leverage in trying to sell them.

You also skipped the question about stocks.

 

[Eric Lyon]

You just basically gave a reason why these are bad for domainers. There are a flood of options for people/businesses in these settle for extensions, you don't have much negotiating leverage in trying to sell them.

Your reply is spot on to that snippet of my post! Unless an investor knows what they are doing, they won't make much (If any) money in the nTLD markets this early in the game, however, once an investor/reseller isolates the buying triggers of end-users developing brands on nTLDs, they can slip into the action with a new strategy and clean-up where others are missing the mark.

The reality is that a domain (Regardless of extension) is truly only worth what and end user is willing to pay for it or what a reseller can convince an end-user it's worth in a solid presentation.

 

[Bram C.]

The price structure (Call it a conspiracy theory) looks more like an attempt by the registries to thwart/prevent domain cybersquatting by resellers (By having a higher reg/renewal fee) and target end users directly. Now, instead of having to pay $50k+ for a .com from a reseller that could have been registered for $8 to $15, an end user can go direct and get a new gTLD to brand for $25, $150, or $2k+ (Still much cheaper than the reseller/cybersquatter price).

All that tells me is that as a domain investor I would be smart to stay away from the new gTLDs as it's obvious the registries are the domainers here. Which I have been saying all along

 

[Kate]

The irony is domainers registering names in nTLDs while the matching .com is unregistered...
Or when pricing their domains they don't bother to check if the .com is for sale and for how much. If the .com is priced at 2K and your name is priced at 1.5K good luck.
Making a sale is not the problem. The problem is to repeat the feat again and again, and get a proof of concept that can be reproduced.

 

[frank-germany]

Steve Jones - @Domainate.com answered this on Quora:

Steve Jones, Domainate.com COO, a domain industry professional for 7 years, offers consulting and training on acquisitio...
Answered 24 Mar 2011
Believe it or not, until 1995, domain registration was free. Network Solutions was granted the authority to start charging for them in 1995, at which point cost of domain registration was $100 for 2 years of registration, which dropped to $70 for 2 years in 1997. Bear in mind they were the sole source of domain registrations until 1998 when ICANN was formed and forced Network Solutions to split its registry and registrar sides and allow other registrars to resell domains from the registry.

--> for 2 years of registration, which dropped to $70 for 2 years in 1997.

that was 2 times $70

Steve Jones - @Domainate.com answered this on Quora:

Steve Jones, Domainate.com COO, a domain industry professional for 7 years, offers consulting and training on acquisitio...
Answered 24 Mar 2011
Believe it or not, until 1995, domain registration was free. Network Solutions was granted the authority to start charging for them in 1995, at which point cost of domain registration was $100 for 2 years of registration, which dropped to $70 for 2 years in 1997. Bear in mind they were the sole source of domain registrations until 1998 when ICANN was formed and forced Network Solutions to split its registry and registrar sides and allow other registrars to resell domains from the registry.

maybe I remember wrongly
maybe i can find can invoice of 1998

 

[deez007]

Warren Buffet has repeatedly said Bitcoins are a horrible investment and people should not waste their time investing in Bitcoins...

Interesting isn't it.... One of the most notable investors in the word told people not to invest in probably one of the best investments in our lifetime. Chances are he repeatedly wanted people to steer clear of Bitcoin because it made a mockery of the traditional investments, the investment model that he spent decades mastering. Now when Bitcoin came about, it provided the opportunity for new kids on the block to make rake in returns on investments that Warren Buffet couldn't dream of achieving with the traditional investment platforms (I'm not talking about the monetary value, I'm referring the the % return on investment... nothing in Warrens portfolio could generate 2000% return on investment in a few years)

Same principle here... not saying we can expect insane 2000% return on investment but the point I'm making is that even industry leaders can get it wrong... OR have ulterior motives. If this can apply to Warren Buffet you can bet your sheeple @ss it applies to Mike M as well.

 

[sarahsdomains]

Everyone has an opinion, and if they were always right they wouldn't be arguing their case repeatedly.

The truth is, trends on the WWW are changing on a daily basis and anyone who discourages it's advancing opportunities or belittles others who are trying their own strategies of entrepreneurism deserves to be told to shut up.

GTLD'S MIGHT BE THE NEXT DOT COM
AND YOU CAN NOT DEFINITIVELY DISPROVE IT.

SO DONT TRY IT MANN

 

[frank-germany]

--> for 2 years of registration, which dropped to $70 for 2 years in 1997.

that was 2 times $70



maybe I remember wrongly
maybe i can find can invoice of 1998

Show attachment 59180

wrong image

 

[JB Lions]

Warren Buffet has repeatedly said Bitcoins are a horrible investment and people should not waste their time investing in Bitcoins...

Interesting isn't it.... One of the most notable investors in the word told people not to invest in probably one of the best investments in our lifetime. Chances are he repeatedly wanted people to steer clear of Bitcoin because it made a mockery of the traditional investments, the investment model that he spent decades mastering. Now when Bitcoin came about, it provided the opportunity for new kids on the block to make rake in returns on investments that Warren Buffet couldn't dream of achieving with the traditional investment platforms (I'm not talking about the monetary value, I'm referring the the % return on investment... nothing in Warrens portfolio could generate 2000% return on investment in a few years)

Same principle here... not saying we can expect insane 2000% return on investment but the point I'm making is that even industry leaders can get it wrong... OR have ulterior motives. If this can apply to Warren Buffet you can bet your sheeple @ss it applies to Mike M as well.

Why do people always bring up examples that have nothing to do with domaining? As if I couldn't find examples of the opposite happening. So and so said something totally unrelated to domaining would fail and it did, therefore it's true of new gtlds?

Pick some data points you want to use for evaluating the success or failure of extensions. Reg numbers, sales, whatever and apply that equally across the board and let's take a look.

None of this stuff you just used or what I mentioned earlier, fall of Rome, VHS, horse and cars, dinosaurs, it's just silly. There is no shortage of data out there. Use real stuff.

 

[frank-germany]

Everyone has an opinion, and if they were always right they wouldn't be arguing their case repeatedly.

The truth is, trends on the WWW are changing on a daily basis and anyone who discourages it's advancing opportunities or belittles others who are trying their own strategies of entrepreneurism deserves to be told to shut up.

GTLD'S MIGHT BE THE NEXT DOT COM
AND YOU CAN NOT DEFINITIVELY DISPROVE IT.

SO DONT TRY IT MANN

and really there is no need to

but if you ask yourself what is the better investment
its always the .de

oops no the .com ....

 

[deez007]

Why do people always bring up examples that have nothing to do with domaining? As if I couldn't find examples of the opposite happening. So and so said something totally unrelated to domaining would fail and it did, therefore it's true of new gtlds?

Pick some data points you want to use for evaluating extensions. Reg numbers, sales, whatever and apply that equally across the board and let's take a look.

Clearly, you failed to understand the point of my comparison. No one is comparing Bitcoins to domains....

"the point I'm making is that even industry leaders can get it wrong... OR have ulterior motives. If this can apply to Warren Buffet you can bet your sheeple @ss it applies to Mike M as well"

 

[JB Lions]

Clearly, you failed to understand the point of my comparison. No one is comparing Bitcoins to domains....

"the point I'm making is that even industry leaders can get it wrong... OR have ulterior motives. If this can apply to Warren Buffet you can bet your sheeple @ss it applies to Mike M as well"

I understand, the people that are fluffing new gtlds are invested in them somehow. Before you say .com, .com doesn't need help. It's not up for debate.

 

[Lox]

The irony is domainers registering names in nTLDs while the matching .com is unregistered

This is absolutely true!

reg fee - waiting
planets.observer
planetsobserver.com

 

[nomen]

This is absolutely true!

reg fee - waiting
planets.observer
planetsobserver.com

.OBSERVER makes me wanna cry.

 

[deez007]

I understand, the people that are fluffing new gtlds are invested in them somehow. Before you say .com, .com doesn't need help. It's not up for debate.

You assume the ones investing in nGTLD are also not heavily invested in .com's as well.... yeah, newsflash..most of us who invest in nGTLD are not anti .com it's just that we see the potential in nGTLD's and choose to invest in some of the good ones, most of us still have a portfolio dominated by .com's and cctld's.

 

[JB Lions]

You assume the ones investing in nGTLD are also not heavily invested in .com's as well.... yeah, newsflash..most of us who invest in nGTLD are not anti .com it's just that we see the potential in nGTLD's and choose to invest in some of the good ones.

Where do you see me talking about any of that? I know it runs the board. People invest in all kinds of extensions, some do just invest in new gtlds.

But show me something real. You can pick the data points you want to use and let's actually look. Give me something deeper than fluff.

You said you see the potential, based on.........?

 

[Lox]

that was 2 times $70

Correct $140 for 2 years