.net sites that trump their .com

[labrocca]

I know that many believe that .coms are 100x better to have but I see often enough a dot net site where they own the dot com too.

http://www.mygamercard.net/

That's an example. I also own a .net started site where I later acquired the dotcom but I still run the site as a .net.

Does anyone else have sites they know that runs as the .net even though they own or just redirect the dot com?

 

[localexperts]

Traffic or Revenue - Leakage is a concern of domainers, not people who run internet companies or developed domains - the leakage isn't significant.

 

[notlikeyou]

Traffic or Revenue - Leakage is a concern of domainers, not people who run internet companies or developed domains

were you looking down your nose at us when you wrote this? :lol:

- the leakage isn't significant.

It's not significant because you have built, branded, SEO'd, and linked everything around your .net version which would then drastically effect the number of visitors that would go to the .com version by mistake.

 

[localexperts]

You market a web site via several tactics:

1) SEO - Zero traffic loss since a click comes from a search engine directly to your site
2) PPC/SEM - You purchase a click from a search engine or site directly to your site
3) Branding - Branding takes millions of dollars. Typically branded sites have unique content that is so distinct, if it was developed on a .net - unless the .com had the same exact content - the user would recognize their mistake and go directly to the .net.

I spend 10s of thousands each month driving traffic to dot nets and .tv and the .com gets nothing from my marketing efforts.

were you looking down your nose at us when you wrote this? :lol:.

I think some domainers over-emphasize leakage to increase their dot com investments - not because it is a significant business risk.

not significant because you have built, branded, SEO'd, and linked everything around your .net version which would then drastically effect the number of visitors that would go to the .com version by mistake.

I disagree.

I will add one more, 4) Membership.

If an advertiser or member went to the wrong site, they would simply correct the problem since they couldn't login on a parked site or a domain where they didn't originally register.

 

[Steven]

Nowadays, with google and increasing number of internet savvy users, development = king instead of .com = king.

 

[localexperts]

I would agree and say it slightly different - content is king. development is queen.

 

[labrocca]

How about Sourceforge.net?

Wouldn't developing the .net version, marketing & link building etc. drastically influence the amount of traffic that would have gone to the .com version?

That's sort of the point...it does from my experience. Which means development of a net can be very rewarding. I have to admit I have yet to experience the same levels of success with info, biz, or any other TLD. Net's have done well for me a couple times now.

Leaking is something that is a concern for domainers mostly as they are going to rely mostly on type-in traffic to their .net vs developers that will rely on links, serps, and direct traffic from existing members.

 

[bmugford]

Labrocca, I agree with you about .NET

The traffic leakage is overblown, and mainly something a domainer worries about. I sell keyword .NET frequently and no end users are ever worried about leakage. They are just more interested in having an in demand term in a credible extension.

The truth is that unless you have a really good domain that gets type in traffic like Money.com or something, most domains even in .COM don't get massive type in traffic.

I hear the same argument about lost traffic to domains with 1 well placed hyphen separating keywords. The truth is that at least 95% of websites are web based only and the vast majority of traffic is not type in, it is link or search engine based.

Having an exact keyword match helps greatly in that aspect.

Brad

 

[snoop]

Drastically - no

There might be some leakage. Enough for somone to make a few dollars in parking revenue each month - but not enough to make a living and definately not enough revenue loss for the DOT NET owner to spend 10 minutes focused on this problem.

It is more of an issue that is being suggested here. Lots of typo domains earn more than "a few dollars per month" and you'll find that generally when an alt tld sites get to a certain size the more likely it is they try and buy the .com and rebrand.

 

[bmugford]

Well, when you reach a certain size it makes sense to grab the .COM also to protect your brand. I am not sure about "Rebranding" though. Most of the companies just forward the .COM to the .NET after they acquire it.

Brad

It is more of an issue that is being suggested here. Lots of typo domains earn more than "a few dollars per month" and you'll find that generally when an alt tld sites get to a certain size the more likely it is they try and buy the .com and rebrand.

 

[snoop]

Labrocca, I agree with you about .NET

The traffic leakage is overblown, and mainly something a domainer worries about. I sell keyword .NET frequently and no end users are ever worried about leakage. They are just more interested in having an in demand term in a credible extension.

Well the people who actually do go ahead and use a .net name are the people least likely to see this as a concern, at least initially. It is a bit like looking for atheists in a church.

The truth is that unless you have a really good domain that gets type in traffic like Money.com or something, most domains even in .COM don't get massive type in traffic.

The issue here though is one of confusion/lost traffic after development, that it is different issue to domains getting natural type in traffic.

I hear the same argument about lost traffic to domains with 1 well placed hyphen separating keywords. The truth is that at least 95% of websites are web based only and the vast majority of traffic is not type in, it is link or search engine based.

Having an exact keyword match helps greatly in that aspect.

Brad

There have been studies on this and link and search engine traffic account for about 1/3 of traffic. The other 2/3 is direct navigation traffic. I think mainly from people revisiting sites they already know via bookmarks and typing it in.

In short most people use search engines and links to find new sites but that isn't what accounts for most web traffic.

 

[bmugford]

A lot of that "direct navigation" traffic is also from bookmarks, not direct type in.

If people are using search engines to find new sites, then it makes perfect sense to use a exact keyword match .NET which will rank well.

Once your site is bookmarked by someone then extension doesn't matter.

Brad

There have been studies on this and link and search engine traffic account for about 1/3 of traffic. The other 2/3 is direct navigation traffic. I think mainly from people revisiting sites they already know via bookmarks and typing it in.

In short most people use search engines and links to find new sites but that isn't what accounts for most web traffic.

 

[snoop]

If people are using search engines to find new sites, then it makes perfect sense to use a exact keyword match .NET which will rank well.

Once your site is bookmarked by someone then extension doesn't matter.

The big issue is "repeat visitors", that is what most web traffic is. Your argument seems to be based on almost all direct navigation traffic being bookmarks, which is very flimsy in my view.

 

[bmugford]

For someone who has said many times that you don't develop sites, you sure are the expert on it.

Please don't let your huge loss on Cats.net jade you to the benefits of .NET as far as development and end users go.

Brad

What do you base this assumption on? Personally I don't think there is data to make an argument either way on that.

The big issue is "repeat visitors", that is why most web traffic is. Your argument is based on almost all direct navigation traffic being bookmarks, which is very flimsy in my view.

 

[snoop]

For someone who has said many times that you don't develop sites, you sure are the expert on it.

Please don't let your huge loss on Cats.net jade you to the benefits of .NET as far as development and end users go.

Brad

I mistakenly thought we were having a rational discussion here.

 

[localexperts]

The big issue is "repeat visitors", that is what most web traffic is.

Actually that is not true. Most internet traffic to most sites are one and done. I recognize that leakage is about repeat, but for most sites - 50-90% of their visitors are one and done.

Any traffic that is repeat comes for two purposes: 1) membership or 2) content. If that is the reason for the return visit, that visitor is going to go to the right site b/c they probably go to the site 2 or 3 times a week. If they accidently mis-type the domain name, it is easily corrected because the visitor wants to read content that is only available on that site.

The original site doesn't lose the visitor long term because they don't build on a dot com.

It is more of an issue that is being suggested here. Lots of typo domains earn more than "a few dollars per month" and you'll find that generally when an alt tld sites get to a certain size the more likely it is they try and buy the .com and rebrand.

I'm not denying that typos make money. I've never been in a meeting or discussed leakage. It was never a concern for us.

Most internet companies, don't buy mis-spellings. Some do, but that is more of an after thought. It is not the primary business.

Does leakage happen, at a small percentage of overall revenue.

A typo of Yahoo might make nice revenue, but as a percentage of the millions that Yahoo makes. Yahoo would rather spend their time growing their business - not concerned that someone is making money of Yahoa.com

it is a matter of prospective.

The primary question, was can you build out a dot net as a viable business. The answer is yes. Leakage will not kill your business or will it be a major concern.

 

[snoop]

Actually that is not true. Most internet traffic to most sites are one and done. I recognize that leakage is about repeat, but for most sites - 50-90% of their visitors are one and done.

Then how is it that 65% of internet traffic is via direct navigation? What do you base that statement on, ie any data?

If they accidently mis-type the domain name, it is easily corrected because the visitor wants to read content that is only available on that site.

The original site doesn't lose the visitor long term because they don't build on a dot com.

If this was true companies wouldn't be concerned about losing traffic via typos, ie you are suggesting that it costs them nothing.

I think what you are saying above would apply to very web savvy surfers, rather than the average mom and pop at home who is at risk of consuming from a competitor when they go to the wrong site.

I'm not denying that typos make money.

If they make money at whose expense are they making money from?

A typo of Yahoo might make nice revenue, but as a percentage of the millions that Yahoo makes. Yahoo would rather spend their time growing their business - not concerned that someone is making money of Yahoa.com

You can see from the lawsuits and UDRP's that Yahoo have filed over the years that they are concerned about this. Stuff like Yahoa.com is small beans though compared to if they had used Yahoo.net with someone else owning the .com.

The primary question, was can you build out a dot net as a viable business. The answer is yes. Leakage will not kill your business or will it be a major concern.

Disagree with the second part. It probably won't kill the business but it should be a major concern. People make all sorts of mistakes in business but can still do ok. However they'd do better if the minimized the number of mistakes made. Thankfully the vast majority of people do go with the extension that their customers are likely to expect, ie .com and popular country codes.

 

[localexperts]

65% of internet traffic is not direct navigation to any site I've ever worked on. Most of the traffic was generated from ads, search engines, and software integration (when I worked on Quicken.com).

Once again, leakage is insignificant revenue.

Snoop have you have ever worked for a large internet company. I have. Two large, one medium size, and one small one. We never discussed leakage. Sorry.

 

[snoop]

65% of internet traffic is not direct navigation to any site I've ever worked on. Most of the traffic was generated from ads, search engines, and software integration (when I worked on Quicken.com).

It is simply a statistic from studies by Web Side Story over the years. Have you seen any other data? Are you are basing you opinion on how one site gets their traffic?

 

[localexperts]

It is simply a statistic from studies by Web Side Story over the years. Have you seen any other data? Are you are basing you opinion on how one site gets their traffic?

I was a Web Side Story client for three years. My job was to analyze our traffic data since I ran the marketing department.

 

[snoop]

I can't find any more up to date data but here is the data from web side story from a few years ago, I am sure the published this info for quite a while after though they have changed their name a couple of times,

More Efficient Web Surfing on the Rise as Users Know Exactly Where They Want to Go, According to WebSideStory's StatMarket

WebSideStory, Inc. ( www.websidestory.com), the leader in outsourced Web analytics, today reported that the majority of Internet sites worldwide are reached through direct navigation - typing a URL in their browser address bar or using a bookmark - rather than through search engines and Web links. As of February 3, 2003, over 64 percent of Internet users arrived at sites by direct navigation, compared to about 53 percent only a year ago, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket division, a leading source of data on global Internet user trends. Web links are anything that links from one site to another, including text links and ad banners.

"The days of Web users randomly 'surfing' to sites is ending. Now, more than ever, people know exactly where they want to go on the Web," said Geoff Johnston, vice president of product marketing for StatMarket. "This does not mean search sites or other Web links are now less important, because users still have to initially find a site before they can bookmark it. However, having a site worth returning to is becoming increasingly important to businesses."

StatMarket (www.statmarket.com) aggregates information from millions of Internet users a day to thousands of sites worldwide using WebSideStory's market-leading HitBox® (www.hitbox.com) Web analytics services. StatMarket helps Web site designers and software developers build the most effective sites and products possible. HitBox helps businesses optimize their online marketing and merchandising initiatives by providing detailed, real-time analysis of online visitor and customer behavior.

Global Internet Usage share

Referring Type


As of 2/03/03


As of 2/03/02


As of 2/03/01

Direct Navigation


64.43%


53.19%


48.14%

Web Links/Search Engines


35.55%


46.79%


51.85%