.tv Premium Registration?

[discovernow]

Hello Everybody,

As a premium owner of many domains myself, and been buying .tv since 2000, I really believe in .tv.

However, I get disgusted at how DM/Enom reprices premiums after they drop. I was curious to see if people are actually buying these premiums when they get repriced. I never do, because it's robbery but is there a easy way to find out if people are actually buying these premium when they get repriced?

Thanks, Jim

 

[MicroGuy]

One thing you can do is look at the total number of unregistered premium .TVs. That number has been rising since early 2008. At one time I was keeping data on this trend.

Number of unregistered (available inventory) premium .TV domains:

January 2008 = 52,521
October 2008 = 52,938
November 2009 = 53,919

You can draw your own conclusions from this data, but I think it's safe to say that this is not a good sign. If .TV were growing you would expect to see declining numbers of available premiums. IMO.

 

[discovernow]

One thing you can do is look at the total number of unregistered premium .TVs. That number has been rising since early 2008. At one time I was keeping data on this trend.

Number of unregistered (available inventory) premium .TV domains:

January 2008 = 52,521
October 2008 = 52,938
November 2009 = 53,919

You can draw your own conclusions from this data, but I think it's safe to say that this is not a good sign. If .TV were growing you would expect to see declining numbers of available premiums. IMO.

That sums it up. Whoever is in charge of repricing those premiums, Richard Rosenblatt maybe)
needs to get with the times.

 

[snoop]

That sums it up. Whoever is in charge of repricing those premiums, Richard Rosenblatt maybe)
needs to get with the times.

It is no surprise that more are available. When you price higher you sell less. What would be intersting would be the number registered during that time. I really doubt Verisign is making less with this strategy given they have kept doing it. Lets face they are a business, their job is to maximize revenue, not act in the interests of the registrant.

 

[MicroGuy]

The missing data would be the total number of registered premiums. There are two members of NP that I can think of that could easily provide this information.

For example, if there are 5000 registered premiums with the inventory of unregistered (drops less new regs) premiums growing at 1000 per year, we'd have a very dim outlook.

But if there are 50,000 registered premiums it would be an entirely different story.

 

[RogueWriter]

It is a strange business model to be sure, "Aha! No one wants this domain at $500 per year - let's raise the annual fee to $10,000, that will sell, for sure."

 

[snoop]

It is a strange business model to be sure, "Aha! No one wants this domain at $500 per year - let's raise the annual fee to $10,000, that will sell, for sure."

It makes about as much sense as domainers who register names for reg fee then try to sell them for more,

"Aah nobody wants this name for reg fee, lets register it and ask more for it, then it will sell, for sure".

 

[equity78]

Not exactly snoop, if you reg a name for $8 and look to sell it for $100 or $500 that's one thing. A premium that was registered for $500 and dropped showed that the holding cost is too high, raising it on the drop would only be logical if you felt there was a great demand for the name.

 

[MicroGuy]

I'm thinking that the Dot TV group (what is it like 2 people?) is pretty much clueless with the problem further complicated by management's complete lack of concern for this segment of their business. Richard Rosenblatt is busy with his "Air Conditioned" night clubs and eHow.com. Dot TV is probably little more than an unwanted distraction to DM/Enom at this point.

Also, let's not give them too much credit for smart pricing when they can't even get ad feeds to run on parked pages. No ads, no revenue!!

Just a few examples (there are thousands) :

wines.tv
billy.tv
bird.tv
biography.tv

Just my two cents.

 

[snoop]

Not exactly snoop, if you reg a name for $8 and look to sell it for $100 or $500 that's one thing. A premium that was registered for $500 and dropped showed that the holding cost is too high, raising it on the drop would only be logical if you felt there was a great demand for the name.

The point is domainers do the same thing, they register names nobody else wants at $8 (the holding cost was too high for anyone to register it), then try and sell them for more. They register premium names for $250 yr (which nobody else wants) thinking they can get even more. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm saying domainers do basically the same thing when they register a name. They jack up the price for a name nobdy else wanted at the lower price.

Personally I think it is hypocritical for domainers to complain about something we all do ourselves and I'm not convinced it is a bad business model, if it was it would have been abandoned a long time ago.

 

[equity78]

OH I agree with that, I wrote a long time ago about, Greed is Greed whether it is the registry,registrar or domainer.

The model may be bad if they would realize a several fold increase in new registrations. Of course no one knows the correct answer if it would or if it would not.

 

[snoop]

I'm thinking that the Dot TV group (what is it like 2 people?) is pretty much clueless with the problem further complicated by management's complete lack of concern for this segment of their business. Richard Rosenblatt is busy with his "Air Conditioned" night clubs and eHow.com. Dot TV is probably little more than an unwanted distraction to DM/Enom at this point.

Also, let's not give them too much credit for smart pricing when they can't even get ad feeds to run on parked pages. No ads, no revenue!!

Just a few examples (there are thousands) :

wines.tv
billy.tv
bird.tv
biography.tv

Just my two cents.

Interesting about the parking ads. The cynic in me wonders how much money is really being lost though.

I kind of wonder also if there is more to it than being accidental.

 

[equity78]

No money is being lost Snoop we know those names get no type in traffic.

 

[Kate]

The way I see it, DM wants to dominate the .tv marketplace.
Domainers are tolerated but they are like competitors to DM. In the end there are not many crumbs left for them on the table. How can you compete against the registry ?

The fact remains that .tv is one of the few ccTLDs that are unregulated, and the epic of .tv should serve as a guiding light for future extensions - there are talks of tiered pricing being introduced in future TLDs but also existing gTLDs :music:

 

[snoop]

The way I see it, DM wants to dominate the .tv marketplace.
Domainers are tolerated but they are like competitors to DM. In the end there are not many crumbs left for them on the table. How can you compete against the registry ?

The fact remains that .tv is one of the few ccTLDs that are unregulated, and the epic of .tv should serve as a guiding light for future extensions - there are talks of tiered pricing being introduced in future TLDs but also existing gTLDs :music:

I think that sums it up pretty well.

 

[frankiethepet]

You can draw your own conclusions from this data, but I think it's safe to say that this is not a good sign. If .TV were growing you would expect to see declining numbers of available premiums. IMO.

It depends from which angle you're looking at it,

New seriously developed .tv sites springs up everyday, mostly in Europe.

I would call that QUALITY growth of .TV.

There is no other "new" extension that has that kind of quality growth.
Yeah sure there may be more registrations on some other new extensions but i wouldnt call it quality growth, its speculative growth.

But since its much more of a project to develope, simple reselling of mediocre names wont work in a big scale.

The bottom line is that its an end user extension and quality wise its growing.

Its not like other domains, and it should be treated that way.

 

[Kate]

Well I spend most of my time in Europe and the prominent extensions there are the local ccTLD + .com & other extensions such as .org .eu etc here and there. I don't see a lot of .tv (or .mobi or whatever).

The only one I am well aware of personally is arte.tv. There must a few other high-profile domains like sky.tv (wild guess) but if only a small percentage of the TV channels actually make use of the extension, it's clearly a niche market and the prospects for growth are not infinite.

I'm not sure that .tv is growing. Since there are no public registration stats (AFAIK) we can only speculate on that, but I would not be surprised if there were more .tv registered 5 years ago.

So maybe there is quality in .tv but no critical mass.

 

[MicroGuy]

It depends from which angle you're looking at it,

New seriously developed .tv sites springs up everyday, mostly in Europe.

I would call that QUALITY growth of .TV.

There is no other "new" extension that has that kind of quality growth.
Yeah sure there may be more registrations on some other new extensions but i wouldnt call it quality growth, its speculative growth.

But since its much more of a project to develope, simple reselling of mediocre names wont work in a big scale.

The bottom line is that its an end user extension and quality wise its growing.

Its not like other domains, and it should be treated that way.

I think you make some good points. Thanks in posting.