- Impact
- 8,633
I think when new gTLDs sales are reported, we are in many cases truly comparing oranges to apples.
There are 2 main problems:
A) Ignorance of renewal fees: if you go to reliable source like namebio.com. you can filter for example aftermarket sales of .store extension. When you sort it by price, you see that highest reported sale so far is coin / store for 26 705 USD, and second one is aloyoga / store for 2408 USD. So far so good, this is clear, one is for 26 705 USD and one is for 2408 USD, no big deal.
But actually, there is a huge difference: afaik coin/store has premium renewal around 26k each year, while aloyoga / store has normal standard renewal for .store, which is between 7-45 at most registrars.
So, what is the actual selling price of coin / store which should be reported to reflect this huge difference?
If you report this simply is 26k, you ignore the fact that it is 26k every year. If it is registered for next 10 years, it is basically 260k sale. In another words, it is similar to 260k sale of .com, where payment terms are agreed as devided into 10 yearly payments of 26k.
But you do not know about that, because sales are reported, but renewal are not.
B) What about existing registrations?: recently someone asked me if it is true that such nice extension like .properties does not sell well. I asked the guy where this information comes from??? He told me, he filtered ".properties" extension in namebio.com, and there are only 3 sales reported, with keywords Pune, Sex and Foreclosure, sold for small prices of 995, 150 and 110. He thus concluded that this extension does not sell well, and there is no interest if only 3 such records are there in namebio.
I told him that (of course) reality of this extension is very very different:
a) There are more then 13000 domain names registered in this extension
b) All reasonable names are registered, almost nothing is left available (I have analysed this extensively)
c) Most good names are continuosly registered since General Availability, since Jun 2014
d) And the best part: many of those names are registered even when they carry higher premium renewals. Examples: keyword "dream" costs around 900/year, "usa" the same, "lasvegas" is for 120/year, etc.
So remember this: sources like namebio.com report aftermarket sales of new gTLDs, when someone is selling their names via venues like Sedo, Flippa or Afernic. But the fact that registrants are holding their names, and are paying even high renewals each year for them, and that there are hundreds or thousands of such names in given extension, is simply not reported in namebio (as those are not aftermarket sales).
In other words : at the moment, if you do not know anything about new gTLDs, and you will just filter namebio, you will get information that name 'foreclosure / properties sold for 110 in 2015 (and reason for that is that someone tried to flip it - not quite succesfully - in first year after acquisition, and this is recorded), but you will completely miss information about dozens/hundreds of names like dream/properties, which are registered from the very beginning and for which the registrants are paying anything between 120- 900 / year.
So such filtering alone will simply not give you a real status of that particular extension.
As a consequence of this over reliance on namebio, you can get this type of beautiful appraisal of your new gTLD name, check it here. Logic here goes like this: I am going to appraise your .capital domain name...I will have a quick look at namebio...ooh, I see only 7 reported aftermarket sales, so ..ehm...your name has no value..
I honestly find this rudiculous. This is the new peak of oversimplification of new gTLDs, but this appraisal made me to write this post, so it migh be useful after all.
So I think we are mixing oranges with apples and also bananas in many instances, particularly when we ignore fact that renewal fees play major role when it comes to new gTLDs.
Your opinions are welcome
There are 2 main problems:
A) Ignorance of renewal fees: if you go to reliable source like namebio.com. you can filter for example aftermarket sales of .store extension. When you sort it by price, you see that highest reported sale so far is coin / store for 26 705 USD, and second one is aloyoga / store for 2408 USD. So far so good, this is clear, one is for 26 705 USD and one is for 2408 USD, no big deal.
But actually, there is a huge difference: afaik coin/store has premium renewal around 26k each year, while aloyoga / store has normal standard renewal for .store, which is between 7-45 at most registrars.
So, what is the actual selling price of coin / store which should be reported to reflect this huge difference?
If you report this simply is 26k, you ignore the fact that it is 26k every year. If it is registered for next 10 years, it is basically 260k sale. In another words, it is similar to 260k sale of .com, where payment terms are agreed as devided into 10 yearly payments of 26k.
But you do not know about that, because sales are reported, but renewal are not.
B) What about existing registrations?: recently someone asked me if it is true that such nice extension like .properties does not sell well. I asked the guy where this information comes from??? He told me, he filtered ".properties" extension in namebio.com, and there are only 3 sales reported, with keywords Pune, Sex and Foreclosure, sold for small prices of 995, 150 and 110. He thus concluded that this extension does not sell well, and there is no interest if only 3 such records are there in namebio.
I told him that (of course) reality of this extension is very very different:
a) There are more then 13000 domain names registered in this extension
b) All reasonable names are registered, almost nothing is left available (I have analysed this extensively)
c) Most good names are continuosly registered since General Availability, since Jun 2014
d) And the best part: many of those names are registered even when they carry higher premium renewals. Examples: keyword "dream" costs around 900/year, "usa" the same, "lasvegas" is for 120/year, etc.
So remember this: sources like namebio.com report aftermarket sales of new gTLDs, when someone is selling their names via venues like Sedo, Flippa or Afernic. But the fact that registrants are holding their names, and are paying even high renewals each year for them, and that there are hundreds or thousands of such names in given extension, is simply not reported in namebio (as those are not aftermarket sales).
In other words : at the moment, if you do not know anything about new gTLDs, and you will just filter namebio, you will get information that name 'foreclosure / properties sold for 110 in 2015 (and reason for that is that someone tried to flip it - not quite succesfully - in first year after acquisition, and this is recorded), but you will completely miss information about dozens/hundreds of names like dream/properties, which are registered from the very beginning and for which the registrants are paying anything between 120- 900 / year.
So such filtering alone will simply not give you a real status of that particular extension.
As a consequence of this over reliance on namebio, you can get this type of beautiful appraisal of your new gTLD name, check it here. Logic here goes like this: I am going to appraise your .capital domain name...I will have a quick look at namebio...ooh, I see only 7 reported aftermarket sales, so ..ehm...your name has no value..
I honestly find this rudiculous. This is the new peak of oversimplification of new gTLDs, but this appraisal made me to write this post, so it migh be useful after all.
So I think we are mixing oranges with apples and also bananas in many instances, particularly when we ignore fact that renewal fees play major role when it comes to new gTLDs.
Your opinions are welcome
Last edited:
