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/

 

[dordomai]

In these forums it is politics. It's about buy American ".com" and the rest of the world doesn't matter. The arrogance is appalling.
History matters. Business cycles matter and most aren't aware nothing "reigns king" forever.
Coke was once the only choice, now there are several hundred choices of "soda" all doing just fine and consumers accepting many different choices over just one. The Car industry is a better example. "Ford" "the only choice" now there is hundreds of choices and Ford still exists.

.com is not american. It is THE global standard. It is where the Internet is. It is where we are at the moment and where we are most of the time when we are online.

There is no other standard besides ccTLDs in some countries.

Porno.com sold for $9 million to a company in Europe. Z.com sold for $8 million to a Japanese company.

Chinese are buying .com because in their mind it is the first extension and the one that you need if you want to do serious business.

Show me any of these cute nGTLDs that can do that. Some claim .xyz will do that but it is just a weird hyped extension that will be the future spam filter food.

How many .com's are parked, or on sales pages or don't resolve?

I love .com but more than 70% are not in use.

most .com don't resolve as in any other extension. Most .com are not parked however.

Parked often means, owned by speculators. If the majority of an extension is owned by speculators that isn't a healthy sign. It can mean the demand isn't there and you need to get gamblers in, buying on hope to boost reg numbers. If the sales don't happen, speculators give up and the extension collapses.

listen to the mann next time and stick with .Com

 

[Eric Lyon]

The theory makes sense. . . But gltds are going to be dead, not because of Mann or lack of exposure. . . It's because they cost between 30 to 100 to reggae or renew. But a .com only costs 1 -15. . .

It sounds like you're saying .com is better because it's "cheap". Remember, the $1 store items generally don't last as long as the name brand items. I don't think "cheap" is the right strategy.

 

[Bram C.]

My 2 cents on all of this: Yes change is inevitable. But what that change will be nobody knows at this point.

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":
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. What would 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 mostly 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...

 

[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.

 

[wormfood]

This month's reported new TLD sales on namebio (so far):
Total: 14

com.golf 560 USD 2017-05-20 Sedo -- sorry, what is this? comgolf.com is for sale for $3,888
diy.garden 880 USD 2017-05-19 Sedo
delhi.club 551 USD 2017-05-19 Sedo
latest.style 100 USD 2017-05-19 Flippa -- lateststyle.com is for sale for $4,599
v-r.casino 198 USD 2017-05-18 Flippa
auto.run 809 USD 2017-05-17 NameJet / TLDPros.com
brexit.news 1,050 USD 2017-05-16 Sedo
lgbtq.store 200 USD 2017-05-15 Flippa -- lgbtqstore.com is available to register
phone.shopping 109 USD 2017-05-13 Sedo
web.fund 150 USD 2017-05-11 Sedo
idee.shop 2,000 USD 2017-05-10 Sedo
key.digital 2,500 USD 2017-05-04 Sedo
cyber.cafe 750 USD 2017-05-06 Sedo
mens.club 5,000 USD 2017-05-03 Sedo

4 four figure sales.
While there have been 82 four figure .com sales on Sedo alone.

This is what some people apparently think is worthy of investment:
com.golf
lgbtq.store
phone.shopping
brexit.news

 

[kemjika11]

Mike Mann is at worst mostly right. Outliers dont define the trend. A few NTLDs are doing well, but most are bust from the domainer perspective IMO.

 

[platey]

Mike is more right then you may like

but its not about liking this time
if you need a second opinion then ask Rick Schwartz

the big money is in .com if bought at reg fee and owned over time

the new gtlds don't do themselves any favours by charging high initial registration prices and equally high renewal prices especially as new gtlds have yet to have any long term data to suggest they are worth buying and keeping unlike the recognized standard .com has over the years

celebrities and sports stars etc prefer a .com website it would seem

the amount of .com s a person can buy for the price of some specifically desirable new gtlds they look ok i suppose

.com wins because its seen and recognised ss the global standard

so investing in .com is buying the best quality and extremely reasonable initial purchase price and equally reasonable renewal prices with greater potential for maximum return on investment

and global busineses prefer the .com and many have big $'s for top quality global digital property

 

[frank-germany]

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

 

[Fancy.domains]

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 !!

Name is at least ok for name sites. Much worse than .com, but ok. Mobile websites do almost not exist anymore as responsive design has been standard for several years, so .mobi is dead apart from very short names that might interest other domainers. .Tel has never been a good choice IMO.

However, clubs and organizations are huge phenomenons and these will always be around. BTW, I sold a .club to a European entertainment venue just the other day.

 

[Kate]

Somebody said GTLD = Good To Lose Dinero. Don't have the source handy.

 

[namezest]

18 months ago Mike said something similar. Now after that time is he saying that as someone who has invested in them himself, or as someone with a massive portfolio with huge renewals and therefore a vested interest in dismissing them at every possible opportunity?
He will always say that about gTLD's. No Demand? The numbers of registrations might show end users are getting what they want for a far better price and explain lack of sales. Are his sales down? I would hazard a guess and say Definitely Yes.Numbers don't lie, people do!

A word of advice.... Don't put all your eggs in one basket ??

 

[168]

Glad to hear Mike won the .soy debate

I told porkbun not to buy .blog @ namescon 2
Glad they listened.

I have received offers this year in the low x,xxx for .Global, Media, .Direct, .Tech, .Digital and even .Fish!

Fitting he posted on Facebook check out Facebook.Design

The momentum is building
Happy Hunting!
Cheers

 

[gary-glen]

I feel for the newbs! This is enough to blow their minds...and budget! Expect a lot of drops

 

[168]

In these forums it is politics. It's about buy American ".com" and the rest of the world doesn't matter. The arrogance is appalling.
History matters. Business cycles matter and most aren't aware nothing "reigns king" forever.
Coke was once the only choice, now there are several hundred choices of "soda" all doing just fine and consumers accepting many different choices over just one. The Car industry is a better example. "Ford" "the only choice" now there is hundreds of choices and Ford still exists.

New "G" supporters understand the "dent" in .com will be minimal, still promote .com AND also understand New Demand will continue to increase as more of the world conducts business/recreation/personal interests/shopping/education etc. online.
The "G" stands for growth. New "G"s are going after the GROWTH MARKET NOT the .com/erce/pany market.
This isn't about a takeover or attack. It's about offering relevance for the entire global market with several verticals that didn't even exist before now.
if it were to start today....

Is the whole point in mentioning how it started with high costs, cheap promos (just like the NAYSAYERS complaints of today )
AND promoted as "the only choice"

New "G"s have quality advantages too , 1-5 applies to New "G"s too . 6. Completely agree plurals will be messy. Same applies to .com's

It's unlikely .com would be preferred in today's choices especially with the shorter .country hack choices by the way.

No Sh*t your a commercial company trying to communicate via the internet. that's quite "generic" and not very "relevant"
given the many reasons people are online today."recreation/personal interests/clubs/shopping/education/media/entertainment etc" There are several polls out about "relevance" .club if that's what your looking for is much more "relevant" than .com and shorter than adding club to a .com xyz, .wang, .top has "relevance" in the Asian markets but not in English markets.
The Asian markets are creating their own "relevance" and it doesn't matter if it is "relevant" in English.

There is a big difference between "the only choice" and many "relevant choices" of interest globally, available at a reasonable cost.
Mann's "declarations" are about ignorance of a global perspective from a myopic point of view. A Hitler of domains. History matters.

 

[ezcoms]

And relevant to .com is why are my emails blowing up for people wanting to buy my LLLL.coms and the emails have mandarin and broken English?

.Com and .Net no matter how much domain Sherpas and people turn you into over night domain scholars, your vintagescholaticboooks.today domain isn't going to sell. Even a drunk domainer will register a nonsense .com before that.

 

[dordomai]

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.

Alaska can be beautiful. Problem is, few people live there.

 

[decode]

@Adam27 with over 70% of new domains parked that's likely a standard shared through all domain ext.

How many .com's are parked, or on sales pages or don't resolve?

I love .com but more than 70% are not in use.

Choice is good for everyone. No domains will go up like the initial free registrations of .coms in the early days. That ship sailed. These new gTLDs are a nice opportunity. Just like there are still excellent .coms available. But no one word .coms are available without a big budget and many people are enjoying getting one word or short gTLDs.

More money has been lost investing in .coms that never sell than any other ext. it is what it is.

It's super cool to be able to get some nice short one word domains and new gTLDs allow for that.

These new gTLD help .com value and help the overall domain business.

Cheers

 

[d-e-x]

Hand reg. CasinoLive.online today and already got 2 offers. Is that bad???

 

[168]

I am not from the US and I do know that .com is recognized and used in many countries.

.com is not USA. .com is .com which is the Internet.

nGTLDs are not more relevant. Stockholm.travel will never be worth more than Stockholm.com or VisitStockholm.com or be more relevant.

Youtube.tv will never be more relevant than Youtube.com

Sky.tv or sky.cinema will never be worth more than sky.com

home.loreal will never be better or more relevant than loreal.com

I noticed wineclub.com is in the NamesCon auction. This will be an interesting test as Wine.Club sold for 140k in the same auction

Also, it may be worth contacting Facebook and ask why they are using Facebook.design instead of Facebookdesign.com
or how about WorldHostingDays,the new owner of NamesCon using WHD.Global instead of WHDglobal.com, PayPal.me instead of Paypalme.com Airbnb.design, Telkom.design , the list is growing. It's not too difficult to see adoption of relevance.
Worth is not the point Relevant end use is. Momentum is growing.
No dis intended but your examples are weak. Youtube is not TV it's video. Sky? Home? is Loreal in the home business?
Happy Hunting!

 

[dordomai]

Read my lips Mike Mann: At all registrars, including GoDaddy and Uniregistry when you search for a name you get only ngtlds.
So all the start-ups which register new names register only ngtlds.
So much for end user demand.

according to some sources which have checked the URLs that startups choose, nGTLDs are not popular. If a non .com or non ccTLD is selected it is a "generic" ccTLD like .co, .to, .io etc.

Almost all are either .com or to a lesser extent ccTLDs. nGTLDs are rare as a startup choice.

 

[nomen]

Why Google Buy x.company or .xyz ? or spend Big Money for nTld ? They are Idiots ? They have no plan ?
Google are Trendsetter !
Nobody push a Business without a Plan !

They probably bought those domains because someone thought they were cool. I agree, cool. Absolutely nothing to do with domain investing. Just nothing.

 

[kriss05]

Sounds a bit egoistic, but I enjoy Mann's "attacks" on nTLDs so much. Makes many potential competitors stay away.

 

[atinc]

Are you serious? Even after I literally explained it to you? You want to compare .com reg numbers from 1985-1989? BROWSERS/WEBSITES DID NOT EXIST THEN.

Your explanation doesn`t make sense to me.

You don`t show the same patience for new gTLDs.

As I mentioned above world population is growing each year and new businesses will arise as a result.

When did you last register a dot com literally and what was it?

And what is your favorite domain you own today, you probably bought it way long ago...

new gTLDs , you don`t have this problem.

 

[atinc]

I'm not disparaging. I find it interesting that somebody that's not getting sales, to tell somebody who is to work on their portfolio, especially when they said they liked it.

Let me telll you this, you will never be succesful disparage others or you will never be succesful to sell your dot coms with disparaging new gTLDs.

This takes how many of hours of yours in a month demarketing new gTLDs?

You can`t make sales like this.

This is what I mean.