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/

 

[Eric Lyon]

I added a comment, are you invested in any stocks pertaining to new gtlds? I've seen some of your comments on new gtlds on the blogs (positive) and then the comment about .com being a dinosaur.

I've owned/sold a couple and still own a few nondotcom's. But then, my business model is not the same as everyone elses. There's literally 100 ways to structure a business in this industry. Personally, I like to hold a public and private portfolio. I also like to develop all my domain assets. For me, it doesn't make much sense to hold a domain that can't pay it's own renewals every year. Most my investments are niche targeted to a business model (Service/product) that I can use, that way, even if they don't sell, I still win with the revenue from the business. One example in development that is a new gTLD would be LogoDesign.Work or one of my brand protection properties like Scorpion.Agency

What works for me won't work for everyone else, so it's important that everyone does their own research and structures a business model that works for them.

 

[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.

 

[alcy]

I could not agree more. Com is king and there is no changing that any time soon.

you probably mean never.

 

[d-e-x]

Congratulations! Very nice to hear that. Keep up the good work.

Thanks
I agree with you, for Mike this is a peanuts but for us this is ok. I think $$$ sales are better than nothing

 

[Fancy.domains]

of course they sell
but that doesn 't make make them a good choice

So making XXXX per month from .com is good but bad from new gTLDs?

Seriously, I don't get it at all.

 

[dtagr]

Still ignoring the new gTLD's. Still making my money on .com/.ca

 

[deez007]

I don't think that end users are listening to MM or even know him. They have figured out for themselves what they want to use for their business ventures.
IMO those who say that are precisely those who are heavily invested in new TLDs, and they are looking for validation of their choices because they are feeling insecure (not without reason though).

Thats the thing though, I am not heavily invested in n TLD's ...I do own a fair amount of them but not all heavily invested, I own more .com and ccTLD's so I am not biased to new TLD's. I simply see the value in them. Has the uptake been huge no, not as quickly as many expected...a slow start does not at all imply something is destined to fail. Bitcoin took a good few years to gain momentum... and investment "guru's" like Warren Buffet said it will NEVER take off, it will fail and people should be weary of investing in it. ... he is just one of the many financial and investment gurus who said bitcoin was waste of time...

 

[garptrader]

There is limited demand but between many reserved names, premium prices and/or renewals and a general unwillingness to pay a premium even for a .COM, domain, investing in new TLDs is not going to work out well for most investors.

Domain investments come down to portfolio turn, average sales price and renewal costs. Compared to a .COM portfolio, a new TLDs portfolio will generally see lower turn, higher per domain renewal costs and average sales prices no better than .COM.

My experience with .Net is they almost never sell for more than low $XXX so it just does not make sense to hold many. With .TV, sales prices are comparable to .COM but the renewal cost is more than three times .COM so carrying costs make them too expensive. With .Info, noone wants them at any price. Why are a thousand .Whatevers going to garner a premium selling price when a potential buyer has hundreds of competing non-.COM TLDs to choose from?

Regardless there are a few domainers who have been extremely selective and beaten the odds. For me new TLDs are just too risky and most nTLD portfolios are going to burn to ashes in time.

 

[deez007]

Exactly. As a domainer, 90% of my portfolio is dot com BUT had it not been for the the new gTLD boom, I would have
never been able to acquire a good 3-letter domain like owe.tax
I've only been investing in domains for a couple years, and on a waitressing income at that. Of course all the good short dot com's we're taken light years ago... I would have had to have 6 figures to even get involved with any good short domains... So it gave new domainers like me great opportunity. Another good example: SelfPromo.com was taken 14+ Years ago, so I jumped at the opportunity for "self.promo", its shorter anyways. Any two words that go together well, especially when they are a frequently queried search phrase, separated by one simple dot are beautiful web addresses, that are being sold in mid 5-figures currently, so I agree with you, good gTLDs are by no means dead. To the contrary, they are the wave of the future. Dot com's will always be the wave of the future, that goes without saying. But new gTLDs are as well, when purchased carefully.

The possibilities in longer phrases is cool too, if you can find really good ones. While CyberRealEstate.com was taken 13+ years ago, a small town waitress such as myself can find and invest in something even shorter that displays very nicely: CyberReal.estate

While InternetSecuritySystems.com was taken 16+ years ago, I was able to acquire InternetSecurity.systems

I think the bottom line is, whether we're talking about dot com's or "everything else", only buy domains that make sense. Even dot com's are no good if the domain doesn't make sense.

Absolutely!...I think you've nailed it here.

 

[Landov]

Mike Mann has been attacking New gTLDs again in the past few days with posts on Facebook and some tweets.

Nobody bothers to subminate a thing so aggressively unless he feels threaten by it.

 

[Brands.International]

I agree 100% with above

 

[Lox]

Once you see a message that tells you “Unfortunately, 2 years is the maximum amount of years for which a domain name can be registered”, it's the end and you know what that means.

The price is subject to the laws of supply and demand which can lead to wide price ranges. In the beginning .com was $100, now $7.60 = 20 years travel time. In early 1998 before I made my first investment, I knew someone who takes a 1mil loan and invested everything in domain names. What I learned is "every person is different and every domain name is different". The differences between the two visions is the price people pay for domain name, more divided; less money, more close; more money.

In the end, spreading "unrealistic expectations" are bad for everybody. Pro or against, who cares, buy .com, .net, .org, ... .whatever if you can sell, that's it. Stop crying! It's about selling Something Dot Something. What is the best? Study everything that moves around. Absolutely everything. Don't rush, take a time, think, think again. Don't go buying when you're hungry and you don't have a end-user on horizon. Take a time and lower the risk.

None of .whatever will show up in cemetery soon (minimum lifespan is 25 years). Planning for a second wave of new gTLDs is underway.

Simple as that.

 

[Eric Lyon]

I can't agree.
These guys really don't need to promote .com as such.

They could easily invest into new tlds, if they wished.

It's human nature to rebel against change. However, change is inevitable.

 

[Eric Lyon]

When there is actual progress, a market etc. There are some that are already failing. There are past extensions before all of this that have taken a downward spiral. Numbers are dropping already, most of these are Chinese regs, a lot of them cheap regs. Where is all this market?

Just look at the country breakdown, 46% China - https://ntldstats.com/country

Most of the world doesn't seem to care about them.

Dinosaurs ruled the earth at one time as well. But then, so did the romans, and persia. Legacy domains are the industries dinosaurs and the progress in today's technology is starting to shift. History unquestionably shows that change is inevitable in all markets (even with the Amish) and no one thing will dominate a market forever without change of some kind.

 

[dordomai]

Mann and Rick Schwartz are the most experienced domain investors around doing it longer than everyone else.

Schilling started later and has a conflict of interest because he is selling them.

I would rather listen to Mann or Schwartz.

 

[Fancy.domains]

Nope, you are not
Last two months - 9 gTLD sales, total ROI - $4100 Not bad

Congratulations! Very nice to hear that. Keep up the good work.

 

[decode]

Plenty of new gTLD's will falter. Plenty will work out well for businesses. Domainers will lose a lot and some will make a lot. The key is there is a mid-market that can be served with these new domains and focusing on that can make a nice profit IMO.

If anything gTLD's are bringing the idea of "good" domains to people and letting them get started and will help .com in the long run. I'm happy with many new gTLDs.

There were some good points in the article, one of which is that a lot of people will waste a lot of money on new gTLDs. Remember a lot of people waste a lot of money on .com names. Check out how many expired .com domains there are every single day. .com is the most valuable but not the only value. The loudest voices against new gTLDs seem to be from people with ultra premium .com names.

Wouldn't any business buying a new G also diversify and also have some .com names?
Two huge mistakes:
1) The owners of some new gTLD co's are the defacto domainer, keeping the top names out of sight or overpriced when the entire idea of new gTLDs was to bring these new names to market.
2) Cost of renewals. You could buy 150 of ___________.anynewgtldonsale today for under $200 bucks. But how much to renew? Keeping the renewal costs super low would help all these new gtld co's grow and keep renewal rates higher.

 

[Fancy.domains]

I own lea.name
I had a lot of .mobi and .tel and .biz

now tell me what better with a .club?

Personally, I think .club is great for clubs, just as .org is great for organizations and so on.

 

[frank-germany]

Personally, I think .club is great for clubs, just as .org is great for organizations and so on.

so then .name is great for names and .mobi is great for mobile webpages and .tel is great for businesscard type websites

but it is not !!

 

[RU]

 

[GoKaizen]

Over 70% (18 million) New Domains are Parked

http://adamyamada.com/over-70-18-million-new-domains-parked/http://adamyamada.com/over-70-18-million-new-domains-parked/

 

[Recons.Com]

The intolerant's don't know or don't like to include facts about .com

Let's not point out the .com 99cent sales/freebies, just the New "G" 99 cent sales/freebies.
Let's not remember the days .com was 100 reg fee per year, then 70, then 50, then 35 etc. and now 8.99
Let's not point out the days when you could renew unlimited .com's for 1.29 Yes folks there was a time.

Yes indeed. Just how did .com become king of monopoly ?

This is not politics. It is business. And it is not about fairness and if .com had first mover advantage, that is a fact and it would take billions of $ to try to put a dent in that, just like trying to overtake .pdf or making a cola more popular than Pepsi or Coke, even though both of those are crap and it is easy to make better product.

Now .com, differing from Pepsi or Coke, has quality advantages too, even if it were to start today.

1. Looks (visually pleasing, differing from .xyz, for example)
2. Letters (c, o, m are used in any Latin letters based system, differing from, web, for example)
3. Meaning. Can stand for .Com/mercial, .Com/pany, .Com/munnication
4. Pronounceability (differing from xyz, gdn etc.)
5. Shortness. Minimum length of 3 letters, differing from .blog, .club, .news
6. No confusion with plurals, differing from the likes of .review, .reviews

I can't recall any of the ngtlds that could provide the .com/plete package of the above...

 

[ezcoms]

In a business standpoint unless you have a pretty popular keyword like "sex" .whatever the you may have something worth while. You can make money by developing it or selling it to a person in the adult business that knows what he's doing.

If you think people are going to buy: virtualsceniccartours.club for $1000.00 then you're wasting your time and effort.

I see work trucks driving around. They usually have the business name .com. Or even mom and pop's business Larrythehandyman.com or .net. The smart ones do that. They wouldn't have .club, .ninja. Imagine yourself as a working man putting mikesplumbing.ninja or Erictheroofman.online or .rocks .... I've watched these domain millionaires strategize and make videos promoting the new life of the new extensions. Just another way of selling ice to an Eskimo.

I've always been gold with .com, .net, .org and even a .co --

Save your money and buy a good domain.

 

[frank-germany]

Mike Mann shared Logan Flatt's post.
11 hrs ·



Logan Flatt
16 hrs · Addison, TX, United States ·
In investment terms, .com is midtown Manhattan. ICANN's newly approved extensions (e.g., .tattoo, .reviews, .auction, .map, etc.) are northern Alaska without any mineral rights.

 

[Apprich]

Small percentage of .gTLDs are used for startups.. This could be evidence of how they will be consumed.
So, It's not completely DEAD but there is less significantly demand than it's expectation.. On the contrary ccTLDs are doing far better than gTLDs ... It's not worth to invest on gTLDs at the moment..But difficult to guess in 5 years from now..