Domain Empire

discuss New TLDs & paradox of choice - The domainer view?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

dotGLOBAL

.GLOBALVIP Member
.GLOBAL Staff
Impact
78
Interested in hearing your input on this subject, domainer pros.

What is your experiences as domainers? How could the information be better and how do YOU do to navigate the new name space? Any tips and tricks?

And as far as choices in general goes - do you appreciate options and variations, or does it take up too much time to assess them? How could registies and registrars help registrants, businesses and the general public in this situation?
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
To me, .COM (.net and .org to a lesser extent) have several main elements.
Notoriety, Age, and shear numbers (of domains sold), all of which equal to value ($$$).
New TLDs do not have those or at least no where near the extent of the fore-mentioned.
I think the driving factor behind nTLDs is the "POSSIBILITY" of obtaining a premium domain name that has the search count and the CPC for way less $$$ then what you would pay for it in the form of a .COM/Net/Org.

Aside from the age (and links due to the age) SEO is "said" to be universal between the extensions. Taking them at their word, this could mean potential traffic flow to your site (if built out correctly) because lets face it... rarely is the extension ever manually typed in during a search for a given keyword. SEO and the first page listing is your best friend there (very difficult to over come the age and back-links inherent in older domains however).

So, the "chance" to get premium names at a not so premium price is the lure for me.

There is an ebb and flow to this and this is just my opinion.
No one is going to out do .COM, and I don't think that is the intention here.
However, I do think that the ROI is greater in nTLDs then what you would find in established extensions.

Cheers
 
4
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back