.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?

 

[labrocca]

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

My .net site is getting over 5k uniques per day at the moment. I thought I was losing traffic so I bought .com. Turns out that the dot com accounts for about 30 visitors a day. You can figure out that percentage but it's abysmal imho. And take into account that if I didn't own the dot com it's likely the person would find me since the dot com was parked and wouldn't have gotten them to my site. I am glad I have the dot com but I won't be rebranding.

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.

There is truth to that. I myself wanted to dot com of my dot net but it's more of a vanity thing. Dot com is king no one can dispute that. I am not sure how many successful dot nets that acquire their dot com actually rebrand though. It's more difficult imho. If I had a .info or .biz I might but a .net or .org imho is a waste of time to rebrand. I hold the CNO's very high as a group.

I am not sure about "Rebranding" though. Most of the companies just forward the .COM to the .NET after they acquire it.

I tend to agree but would like to hear from people with first hand experience not just speculative domainers that have never developed a site. I can speak for myself...I won't be rebranding. As a matter of fact I bought all the similar style names in the .net extension to further protect my site. Example: keywordforum.net keyworderforum.net keywordsforum.net and so on...Other than the exact dot com I am not actively pursuing similar names. Reality is that the names are probably going to be expensive while protecting the net arena was reasonable.

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.

Ouch..that was a little below the belt but the truth is Bmugford is right. You're not experienced snoop when it comes to development. You don't appear the slight bit interested in pursuing it. I don't fault you for it but your opinion on the matter is a but skewed.

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.

Hmm...my current site is getting 53% new traffic daily with a 39% bounce rate. That means I am retaining 75%+ of my traffic. I do grow 5-20% per month. The dot com traffic growth isn't moving at nearly the same rate.

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.

That is the heart of this discussion. One thing comes to mind as well...the net extension is suppose to mean network but I wonder how many think it's internet instead? We no longer call the internet the "world wide web" or "web"...more commonly now it's just "the internet". To me the keyword.net flows well and doesn't need repeating. Who here things inter.net is worth less than inter.com? hehe

 

[localexperts]

That report is great, I'm telling you how it exists at 98% of all internet companies that generate between $1M and $50M in revenue.

A perfect example is my old site. We had 10,000 advertisers that came to the site every day or two. But that was not our main traffic concern and would have made our numbers appear like we had tons of repeat users due to the percentage of time they spent on the site and the frequency they visited (some 2-3X a day).

So to Web Site Story, we probably appeared to have alot of repeat users - when 95% of our actual user base came from advertising.

My .net site is getting over 5k uniques per day at the moment. I thought I was losing traffic so I bought .com. Turns out that the dot com accounts for about 30 visitors a day. You can figure out that percentage but it's abysmal imho.

That is my point. I've seen a leakage number of 2% on the high end. 2% leakage for a site that has unique content.

Very insignificiant for most sites.

------------

A couple things about the Web Side Story report. First thing, the report references 2003 data. The rise of Google and PPC Advertising has accelerated in the six years since 2003. Second thing, the comment about people no longer randomly visiting sites, indicates that first time direct navigation was taking a hit as more people went to Google or Yahoo.

I started running PPC Ad Campaigns in 1999. For the first 3 years, I had very few competitors. Since 2004-2006 - the amount of people buying traffic from Google has spiked.

In addition, the decrease in CPM banner ad rates following the 2001 dot com bust means that banner advertising became viable for smaller internet companies in the 2001-2003 timeframe.

In short, these stats pre-date wide spread PPC advertising.

In addition, as with any stats - you have to understand the source data. Could a couple large sites like Yahoo and EBAY significantly influence that base results since their traffic numbers would be a higher percentage when compared to smaller sites.

I think most people on this board would be concerned with smaller sites since most people don't have millions to create a brand, do TV advertising, or generate unique content required to build a grassroots marketing effort that bears fruit.

 

[snoop]

My .net site is getting over 5k uniques per day at the moment. I thought I was losing traffic so I bought .com. Turns out that the dot com accounts for about 30 visitors a day. You can figure out that percentage but it's abysmal imho. And take into account that if I didn't own the dot com it's likely the person would find me since the dot com was parked and wouldn't have gotten them to my site. I am glad I have the dot com but I won't be rebranding.

Rather than just basing your opinion on your own example I think it would be better to look at a wide range of sites, here is some compete examples for some fairly big alt tld sites (the third is a .info). Anyone who comes across a popular .net site feel free to post.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shareapic.net+shareapic.com/?metric=uv

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/manhunt.com+manhunt.net/?metric=uv

(This one the .com was UDRP'd a while ago after the owner paid quite a lot for it)

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/mta.com+mta.info/?metric=uv

 

[localexperts]

Here is a real world DOT TV data. CBSCares.tv is all promoted on CBS.

http://www.quantcast.com/cbscares.tv

http://www.quantcast.com/cbscares.com

386 out of 14,700 uniques - a couple percentage points.

Now how much would you spend to get the extra 2-4%. Not millions. Not six figures. A couple hundred - sure to protect my brand.

I think these numbers are more in line with what most people from this board will experience on their sites.

Rather than just basing your opinion on your own example I think it would be better to look at a wide range of sites, here is some compete examples for some fairly big alt tld sites (the third is a .info). Anyone who comes across a popular .net site feel free to post.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shareapic.net+shareapic.com/?metric=uv

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/manhunt.com+manhunt.net/?metric=uv

(This one the .com was UDRP'd a while ago after the owner paid quite a lot for it)

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/mta.com+mta.info/?metric=uv

That is 1-2% for a site with 150,000 uniques a month.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.tHQMNJv34ARcxXNyoA?p=share+a+pic&fr=yfp-t-501


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=share+a+pic&aq=f&oq=

Also shareapic.com is #2 on Yahoo and #4 on Google for the term "share a pic" so some of that "leakage" is coming from Google and Yahoo.

 

[labrocca]

For a domainer gaining 2% of a popular site from a leakage or typo traffic is their gold mine. Most can't live without that 2% while site owners who are making the real money are just allowing the mice to eat their crumbs.

lol...

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/hackforums.net+hackforums.com/?metric=uv

Developed site grows and the dot com version doesn't. At least not nearly in the same proportion. That's because a developed site gets it's traffic from SERPs and repeat visitors for the most part. dot com is certainly the top choice to brand from but from all real world examples I can find the development of a dot net or dot org will not have a leakage problem to the dot com that's significant.

These are all reasons why I been happy grabbing good development potential dot nets where the dot com is parked doing nothing, offering nothing, and never growing.

 

[localexperts]

Bingo Jessie!

I know a public company that went after the dot com. When the dot com owner told them several millions, they bought the dot org for a few thousand. This was not their "core" brand and they were using the domain for a specific purpose.

 

[Traveler]

My .net site is getting over 5k uniques per day at the moment. I thought I was losing traffic so I bought .com. Turns out that the dot com accounts for about 30 visitors a day. You can figure out that percentage but it's abysmal imho. And take into account that if I didn't own the dot com it's likely the person would find me since the dot com was parked and wouldn't have gotten them to my site. I am glad I have the dot com but I won't be rebranding.

That is good info, thanks for sharing labrocca.

 

[notlikeyou]

For the sanity of all could we keep the personal jabs out of the discussion?

Purty Please?

Otherwise it detracts from all the good information that is being shared in the thread.

 

[localexperts]

For me, the value of DOT NET is inside of a "spoke and wheel" business strategy. My core brand is a DOT COM. The value of DOT NET is the ability to get DOT NET sites into the top five slots for targeted keywords on Google and Yahoo. My core brand is very abstract. Therefore I need niche sites (as great brands) to target specific niches.

At the center is my core DOT COM brand. On the rim is a combination of DOT COM, DOT NET, and DOT TV sites that represent specific niches which I'm targeting. Those network sites are promoted using marketing campaigns tailored toward these niches. Thru SEO and SEM, my goal is to build between 1,000 and 30,000 uniques a month for each niche site.

Then once the primary revenue event for each niche is complete, I cross promote those users to my core DOT COM brand - which is the center of the wheel.

That is my business strategy.

In that model - niche DOT NET sites work very well since they rank well on Google and Yahoo. I would rather own WeddingPhotographers.net than MyWeddingPhotographers.com because I want to target the keyword "wedding photographers" and my experience is that a first tier DOT NET is better than a second tier DOT COM. The 10% more benefit I get from owning WeddingPhotographers.com is not worth the amount of money I would need to pay to purchase the company or the domain.

Leakage is a non issue.

Sorry, I've been an end user for 10 years and a domainer for three.

That is how many end users think.

While some end users think DOT COM, DOT COM, DOT COM.

For every Candy.com sale that is published, there are thousands of end users who reject a desirable dot com because they are too expensive that go un-reported.

 

[enlytend]

Developed site grows and the dot com version doesn't. At least not nearly in the same proportion. That's because a developed site gets it's traffic from SERPs and repeat visitors for the most part.

Furthermore, should anyone else decide to develop the .com the alternate tld will already have a well-established "footprint". Age matters.

Excellent discussion - I stayed out of it at first because I don't have the corresponding .com's for my developed .net/.org/.info domains. However, if were to acquire them I doubt I'd rebrand to the .com on any of my established sites.

My experience is that a first tier DOT NET is better than a second tier DOT COM.

Absolutely! Whenever I find a good available keyword .net or .org in one of my niches where the .com isn't effectively developed I'm all too happy to grab it.

 

[localexperts]

Perfect example. I got PetTrainers.net for $80 off Namejet. I inquired about the DOT COM. The DOT COM owner then reference me to Rick Latona who was selling the domain for $20K - I think. I'm not going to pay $20K for that domain when I was able to get the DOT NET for $80. Sorry. Doesn't make good business sense IMHO.

For every Candy.com sale that is published, there are thousands of end users who reject a desirable dot com because they are too expensive that go un-reported.

No one is going to report that I thought PetTrainers.net is a better value and I rejected going after PetTrainers.com. The press you read, while valuable, only tells the story from a single prospective.

 

[DomainTalker]

localexperts....


Terrific contribution....Thank you.


Btw....I see a note under your Username that says: 'Account Closed By Request'....!!


Please don't leave NP....your expertise & knowledge is far too valuable...

.

 

[localexperts]

Thanks. I left a few months ago on my own accord - I'm back. My status just never got updated when the account got re-activated. Sorry for the confusion. Namepros can be quite addicting when you are trying to launch a company.

BTW check out the About Us on http://www.contractors.org. Seems like Web.com has a similiar viewpoint.

 

[nythemes]

photo.net vs photo.com

and the winner is ......

 

[localexperts]

photo.net vs photo.com

and the winner is ......

http://www.quantcast.com/photo.net

I will post for the DOT COM PR machine, but they are losing 21K users to Photo.com.

Local Experts replies, they have 2.0+ million users and is making money hand over fist - who cares.

 

[nythemes]

but the mice have to eat too..

yes, i never really understood the leakage argument, it's like saying "don't build a nice house in this neighbourhood because it will increase the value of neighbor's houses too"

 

[localexperts]

I've been at four different internet companies (Quicken.com, Lifeminders.com, NetGenShopper.com, and Respond.com). I've never been in a marketing or executive meeting that discussed leakage because we didn't have a typo of our primary brand.

With my friends, who are in marketing at other internet companies - once again we've discussed every internet topic under the sun - but have never discussed leakage as part of business strategy or a marketing plan.

Leakage is a domainer concept, not an internet marketing strategy or business model. There are some times when leakage could come into play, but unless you have spent millions to brand - it is a non issue.

Now we would go after some domainer that regged Lifminders.com and put up a porno site. I'm sure legal would go after them to protect our brand name, not to get significant revenue from owning the typo.

That doesn't take anything away from DOT COM. Clear #1. But #2 and #3 are not far behind despite what the great dot com PR machine tells you. If you need evidence, how many #1s need a PR network or bloggers, associations, and posters to spread untrue facts about #2 and #3 if those rivals were not serious threats.

 

[banners]

I really enjoyed reading this thread. I too thought of freshdrop.net

While I feel .com / .net are close to eachother, I also think there is a psychological aspect to the .com that some people do not consider.

If I am given the option in the SERPS Keyword.net Keyword.com I am going to normally gravitate to the .com , all other things being equal.

Going deeper to the psychology, I feel like part of the .com is professionality / trust. Perhaps this is just how some of us have been programed.

When I see something advertised on tv Something.net it just seems cheap to me. It is comparable to domains with numbers. I think in the back of my head. "Is this company too cheap to invest in a proper .com?" "should I trust this company?"

I also think that the breadcrumbs that a .net can lose to the .com can add up in the big picture.

Overall I think .net is perfectly fine for manipulating the SERPS & developing a website. But I think it loses a lot when trying to promote it outside of the search engines.

So as I see it, in the SERPS they are pretty well equals, with advertising .com blows .net out of the water.

-Just some of my random thoughts.

 

[labrocca]

If I am given the option in the SERPS Keyword.net Keyword.com I am going to normally gravitate to the .com , all other things being equal.

Oh who wouldn't...IF they were same or similar price. What if the com was $8000 and the net was $250 though?

Going deeper to the psychology, I feel like part of the .com is professionality / trust. Perhaps this is just how some of us have been programed.

To a point but I believe .org,.net, and I am starting to feel .tv are fine in that area. .tv if only because people see it on TV so often with informertials and the like. I even still type in ufc.tv even though they eventually acquired the dot com.

I also think that the breadcrumbs that a .net can lose to the .com can add up in the big picture.

Hopefully you are reading this thread instead of just posting. Because I am seeing evidence that it's 2% or less in general. For me personally...it's a while lot less than that...30 uniques to the com and 6000 to my dot net. Even I can't be sure how many of those 30 don't retype or eventually find my dot net anyways. MY CTR is very low. I gotta assume people are bouncing from the dot com and over to my dot net which is what they are looking for. 30 out of 6000...not even close to significant it's .5%.

 

[localexperts]

If trust comes to play with the extension, then IMHO .pro should have the greatest trust factor of all considering their requirements. Beyond the intial hurdle, trust is a factor of the site, not the extension.

If EBAY was EBAY.net, it will still be just as trustworthy as EBAY.com.

Seriously, Branding has to do with setting a perception for the entire domain name, not just the extension.