information Should Car Dealerships Use a Geo .CARS Domain Name?

[bhartzer]

It's been a while since I have released a New TLD case study. I recently completed a 30 page case study where I looked at 3 different .CARS web sites. One moved from a .COM to a .CARS domain, the other two launched new web sites on .CARS domains.

The site that moved, ArizonaUsedCars.com, moved to Arizona.CARS. They saw a 75 percent increase in visitors from Google organic search (just by moving the site). The others have done pretty well, also.

In the PDF, I detail all of the Google Analytics data, as well as SEMrush.com search engine ranking data.

You can download the case study here.

I'd love to hear any feedback you have--positive or negative.

 

[bhartzer]

>> No answer to my questions?

Brad, this latest case study is just that: a case study. I don't know about you, but I personally define a case study different than I define a research study. A proper research study would involve a dataset, testing, looking at the results, reporting results... This latest case study is not a research study per se.

Case studies are pretty commonplace, especially in the B2B world. You know, when companies have a client and they did a great job for the client: they write a case study and publish it. Those aren't biased?

Here are a few case studies. They're all positive, by the way:
https://www.ama.org/resources/Case Studies/Pages/default.aspx?k=contentsource:"Main" AND (AMAContentType:"Case Study")

Google has a few here. Again, they appear to be positive, as well:
https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/showcase/

And CloudFlare:
https://www.cloudflare.com/case-studies/

Next time, when I do a research study, I'll label it just that: a Research Study.

I spent over 30 hours reviewing, analyzing, and writing, rewriting, and rewriting again, this latest case study. It is what it is. No one, ANYWHERE has put actual, real data out there for everyone to review about new TLDs. My goal here is to be transparent with the data and the results. I've been writing and publishing docs on New TLDs since 2014. I've always presented all of the data so you, the reader, can make up their own minds about what the data says. This .CARS case study is no different.

Read the case study (actually download it and read the PDF file, not just the blog post). Form your own opinions on what the data shows.

>> If you answer "Yes" then one of your past case studies should have produced results that were not positive for the sponsor. It seems way too coincidental that the case studies always show positive results for the sponsor.

Past case studies should have produced results that were NOT positive? That makes no sense. Can you point me to a case study that was published by ANYONE, anywhere on the web, where a case study (not a research study but a case study) was published and wasn't positive?

 

[bhartzer]

>> The author of this study uses .COM for his websites.
Actually I do own several New TLDs. I have quite a large portfolio of them--many developed sites. For my two .COMs, they've been up and running since around 2000. 18 years. I have no need to move them at this point.

If any of that is any indication, shouldn't I be more biased about .COM than a .CARS domain?

 

[bmugford]

Next time, when I do a research study, I'll label it just that: a Research Study.

I spent over 30 hours reviewing, analyzing, and writing, rewriting, and rewriting again, this latest case study. It is what it is. No one, ANYWHERE has put actual, real data out there for everyone to review about new TLDs. My goal here is to be transparent with the data and the results. I've been writing and publishing docs on New TLDs since 2014. I've always presented all of the data so you, the reader, can make up their own minds about what the data says. This .CARS case study is no different.

Read the case study (actually download it and read the PDF file, not just the blog post). Form your own opinions on what the data shows.

>> If you answer "Yes" then one of your past case studies should have produced results that were not positive for the sponsor. It seems way too coincidental that the case studies always show positive results for the sponsor.

Past case studies should have produced results that were NOT positive? That makes no sense. Can you point me to a case study that was published by ANYONE, anywhere on the web, where a case study (not a research study but a case study) was published and wasn't positive?

The difference between calling something a "case study" and a "research study" is just semantics really. You are relying on research (30 hours) to support your point of view.

I guess the main difference is in a "research study" you follow that research to the logical conclusion with no preconceived notions. In a "case study" you can cherry pick information to support your preconceived point of view.

I don't personally see anything that has only one potential outcome as a "study" period. If something can only produce positive results that is not an objective study, it is is just paid marketing.

I would have the same issue if Verisign produced a "case study" that showed how beneficial .COM is, or if Coke produced a study saying how great Coke is, etc. I would personally put zero weight or credence in a "study" that has an obvious vested interest like that.

Brad

 

[mr-x]

The site that moved, ArizonaUsedCars.com, moved to Arizona.CARS. They saw a 75 percent increase in visitors from Google organic search (just by moving the site).

Pics of the website before and after moving to new domain. Website layout / content updated at least once more since move. The idea that the increase was due to just changing domain names isn't true.

 

[bhartzer]

>> I guess the main difference is in a "research study" you follow that research to the logical conclusion with no preconceived notions. In a "case study" you can cherry pick information to support your preconceived point of view.
Absolutely Not. It may come as a surprise to you, but I actually am ethical--it sounds as you're saying I'm not. In both cases, if I were to do a case study or a research study, I always would start with no preconceived notions. I would be transparent in presenting the data. In every document/study/research/blog post/article that I've performed and published, that's always been the case. Every. Single. One.

>> The difference between calling something a "case study" and a "research study" is just semantics really.
If that's what you want to think.

>> I don't personally see anything that has only one potential outcome as a "study" period. If something can only produce positive results that is not an objective study, it is is just paid marketing.
If one is transparent with the data, begins with absolutely no preconceived notions, and presents the results in a way that readers can make up their own conclusions, how is there one potential outcome? There never has been, as long as I've been connected to it.

Brad, I'm happy to answer all of your specific questions about any of my New TLD documents/articles/blog posts/studies or any of my conclusions. However, I don't appreciate your public lynching on multiple forums that question my ethics.

 

[bhartzer]

>>Pics of the website before and after moving to new domain. Website layout / content updated at least once more since move.

We'll need some dates of when the site changed designs to properly line up the timing of it all. Sure the site may have updated their web design and possibly their content, but I'm not aware of any changes to the site at the same time they moved to the new domain name.

Those are just two different screen shots of two different designs that the site has had in the past several years. Can you provide dates?

 

[mr-x]

Check http://www.archive.org. You can see several years, right up to redirect to the new domain.

 

[bmugford]

Brad, I'm happy to answer all of your specific questions about any of my New TLD documents/articles/blog posts/studies or any of my conclusions. However, I don't appreciate your public lynching on multiple forums that question my ethics.

That's fine. However, you posted this study on a public forum and it is my prerogative to have an opinion on it.

I am sorry but I don't see a sponsored case study as objective in any way, especially when it is packaged in a way that only the domain change made the difference.

It is likely not just a domain change that is involved when it also involves re-design, seo optimization, advertising. There is more going on than just the domain change.

Brad

 

[mr-x]

Which would be expected when investing in a new domain. Great domain, flawed study.

 

[bhartzer]

>> It is likely not just a domain change that is involved when it also involves re-design, seo optimization, advertising.
Just to be clear--the site moved from ArizonaUsedCars.com to Arizona.Cars with no change in redesign, no SEO done, no advertising done at that time--the site moved domains on March 28, 2016 (clearly you'll see that mentioned in the .PDF). The latest design was done at a much later date, months later.

I'm confident with all the data I presented, and the conclusions I've presented in the .PDF.

 

[namerav]

I have met few people using new gtlds and inquired what's the reason behind using new gtlds instead of .com/.net or cctlds.
The answer is quite different and little surprised me - they say by using new gtlds they can show customers / followers that they are Tech. Savvy and it involves prestige too which put them into different realm, cut above the rest and improved their business.

 

[Name Trader]

I have met few people using new gtlds and inquired what's the reason behind using new gtlds instead of .com/.net or cctlds.
The answer is quite different and little surprised me - they say by using new gtlds they can show customers / followers that they are Tech. Savvy and it involves prestige too which put them into different realm, cut above the rest and improved their business.

Sounds like an emotional response rather than a reasoned response based on facts. But hey. It's a new angle to consider.

 

[namerav]

Sounds like an emotional response rather than a reasoned response based on facts. But hey. It's a new angle to consider.

Yes, most of the businesses are now a days not afraid of experimenting with ngtlds.

 

[jmcc]

I think that the assumptions about the market are flawed, Bill,
The primary market, as the study indicates, is the US market. For this market, the tiny .CARS gTLD is competing with the massive .COM TLD and even .US ccTLD. Outside the US, the dynamics are overwhelmingly away from .COM to the ccTLD. If a business isn't using a .ccTLD as their primary brand in some of these countries, then it effectively is losing traffic.

The main problem that the .CARS gTLD has is brand awareness. The opinion polls from ICANN CCT about awareness of new gTLDs are irrelevant. The reality is that new gTLDs are in a highly contested market and the lack of awareness means that people may not recognise a new gTLD like .CARS as being a real TLD.

The other aspect for a TLD is usage. This isn't the seriously iffy "parking" stuff from ICANN's CCT and elsewhere but real usage analysis. If a TLD is being used for websites and e-mail, people see it. If it is trustworthy, then people begin to develop websites on the TLD and more people see the TLD. This is the virtuous circle of which registries speak. The problem for .CARS gTLD, at the moment, is that there are not that many active .CARS websites. It is therefore almost completely invisible to both potential registrants and customers.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Kate]

Now imagine someone who read this case study, likes the pitch and rushes in to buy a .cars domain and he sees the prices... I wouldn't spend 3K on some kind of SEO experiment.

 

[mr-x]

>> It is likely not just a domain change that is involved when it also involves re-design, seo optimization, advertising.
Just to be clear--the site moved from ArizonaUsedCars.com to Arizona.Cars with no change in redesign, no SEO done, no advertising done at that time--the site moved domains on March 28, 2016 (clearly you'll see that mentioned in the .PDF). The latest design was done at a much later date, months later.

I'm confident with all the data I presented, and the conclusions I've presented in the .PDF.

You've made a huge claim, simply using a new gtld boosted your SERPS and direct navigation traffic while downplaying any advertising, marketing.

You should have expected skepticism and provided real numbers and dates not estimates. While it's possible the domain made a difference, it's likely information we don't have was also a factor.

Website has multiple domains with 301 redirects, time of content updates, offline advertising, Sunday inserts, email campaigns, actual SERP reports, etc.

 

[bhartzer]

>> The main problem that the .CARS gTLD has is brand awareness.
If you read the study (download and read the PDF), you'll see the radio advertising that was done--and, the subsequent direct type-ins of the domain during that radio advertising. It certainly passed the "radio test" so to speak, with real radio listeners who then typed in the domain name and visited the web site. There may be some brand awareness issues with people who are online, but for those who HEAR the domain name, apparently it's not a problem.

>> The opinion polls from ICANN CCT about awareness of new gTLDs are irrelevant. The reality is that new gTLDs are in a highly contested market and the lack of awareness means that people may not recognise a new gTLD like .CARS as being a real TLD.
The opinion polls are probably irrelevant, as they mostly polled people who are online, and tech savvy, no? Again, pointing to the case where real radio advertising was used and looking at the direct type-ins and direct traffic as result of the radio advertising, well, that (to me) says a lot.

 

[mr-x]

.... The problem for .CARS gTLD, at the moment, is that there are not that many active .CARS websites. It is therefore almost completely invisible to both potential registrants and customers.

The other problem is, it's run by Uniregistry. They've made huge prices hikes and at anytime can, double, triple, quadruple renewal fees.

Build a world class website and get world class renewal fees.
https://domainnamewire.com/2017/03/13/godaddy-drops-uniregistry-domain-names-due-to-price-hike/

 

[Name Trader]

Yes, most of the businesses are now a days not afraid of experimenting with ngtlds.

I think established businesses with bottom lines to protect are probably afraid of experimenting away from their .com domain, unless it's too a better .com domain. I don't think, as a ridiculous example, Microsoft are going to be experimenting with moving away from their .com anytime soon. But there might be a few small businesses, which might experiment with an ngtld for their main business. I don't think it's at all as cut 'n dried as you post suggests.

 

[Name Trader]

>> The main problem that the .CARS gTLD has is brand awareness.
If you read the study (download and read the PDF), you'll see the radio advertising that was done--and, the subsequent direct type-ins of the domain during that radio advertising. It certainly passed the "radio test" so to speak, with real radio listeners who then typed in the domain name and visited the web site. There may be some brand awareness issues with people who are online, but for those who HEAR the domain name, apparently it's not a problem.

>> The opinion polls from ICANN CCT about awareness of new gTLDs are irrelevant. The reality is that new gTLDs are in a highly contested market and the lack of awareness means that people may not recognise a new gTLD like .CARS as being a real TLD.
The opinion polls are probably irrelevant, as they mostly polled people who are online, and tech savvy, no? Again, pointing to the case where real radio advertising was used and looking at the direct type-ins and direct traffic as result of the radio advertising, well, that (to me) says a lot.

For me. What you are saying here would have resulted in much the same results if you'd used Arizona.Cars or ArizonaCars.com in your ads. The listeners were going to type in what they had been told to type in. I don't see these results as conclusive without similar ads on the .com. But I am just a layman. Not a marketing man.

 

[JB Lions]

Just reread thread, still some unanswered questions unless I missed it:

"One site was doing iHeartMedia advertising which caused a bunch of direct traffic, type-ins and Google organic traffic to go up. Another did GeniusMonkey advertising (not organic search traffic) and also saw more direct traffic and type-ins."

So, if you wanted to test that merely moving from one extension to another can result in an increase in traffic, then you needed to merely do that and nothing else.

With that paid advertising, that could have resulted in somebody mentioning that on social media, making a blog post about it, more links in, juice etc. which would have helped organic traffic.

I don't think Brad's question was ever directly answered?

"Were other case studies done that didn't have favorable results and not released?"

Meaning, I see reports on 3 studies. What if you looked at 6 examples and found 3 favorable and 3 unfavorable? So, were there other studies done besides the 3 mentioned? Obviously if somebody was sponsoring a study for marketing purposes, they would only use the positive results.

Then something I mentioned earlier about not doing a year vs. year and only 7 months. The 7 months used for the new site just happens to be during a period where it's the best time to buy a used car:

https://www.newsday.com/classifieds...-christmas-new-year-s-thanksgiving-1.11801028

9 out of 10 of the best times happened during that period if you include New Year's Day which is 1 day past the 7 month period. June 1 - Dec 31. Was thinking of Arizona Cars example where it was end of May.

 

[mr-x]

Too many moving parts.

 

[scrsteven]

>> It is likely not just a domain change that is involved when it also involves re-design, seo optimization, advertising.
Just to be clear--the site moved from ArizonaUsedCars.com to Arizona.Cars with no change in redesign, no SEO done, no advertising done at that time--the site moved domains on March 28, 2016 (clearly you'll see that mentioned in the .PDF). The latest design was done at a much later date, months later.

I'm confident with all the data I presented, and the conclusions I've presented in the .PDF.

Maybe I'm missing something since I didn't read the whole study, but with the 2 most relevant archive.org snapshots (March 28 2016 and then the first recorded arizona.cars snapshot - Oct 20, 2016), I see dramatically different websites - a major redesign.

From URLs ending in .aspx to using wordpress with Yoast SEO plugin.

Different graphics, different title tags, different meta descriptions, different URL structures...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160328081416/http://www.arizonausedcars.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20161020172757/http://www.arizona.cars/

So why should the data be compared whatsoever - it looks like one of your 7 month timeframes overlaps with the new design for at least Oct, Nov & Dec 2016, perhaps earlier depending on when it changed.

Also, car sales (and car searches?) are quite seasonal depending on the types of vehicles sold, not sure if the selected 7 month comparison is fair or not, just another factor to consider that could strengthen or weaken the argument... https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/mv_sales_sf.htm

 

[jmcc]

>> The main problem that the .CARS gTLD has is brand awareness.
If you read the study (download and read the PDF), you'll see the radio advertising that was done--and, the subsequent direct type-ins of the domain during that radio advertising. It certainly passed the "radio test" so to speak, with real radio listeners who then typed in the domain name and visited the web site. There may be some brand awareness issues with people who are online, but for those who HEAR the domain name, apparently it's not a problem.

It is the brand awareness of the gTLD rather than specific sites, Bill,
With a widely recognised gTLD or ccTLD, some of the heavy lifting is already done. The .CARS gTLD is a new one and though these sites have done a lot of marketing, the reality is that some people will still automatically assume that there's a .com on the end of a domain name they hear. That kind of behaviour takes years to change.

What is very interesting is that the gTLD lends itself to Exact Match Domain name status but with a difference. Whereas EMDs with .COM and other gTLDs can easily be discounted by Google, the high registration fee creates a kind of Giffen Good, in economic terms, where the value is in its rarity and high price.

The opinion polls are probably irrelevant, as they mostly polled people who are online, and tech savvy, no? Again, pointing to the case where real radio advertising was used and looking at the direct type-ins and direct traffic as result of the radio advertising, well, that (to me) says a lot.

The polls were a CYA attempt to make it seem like the NGT program was a resounding success for ICANN. The sample sizes were too small to measure the impact of the NGTs on a global basis but they had lots of pretty graphs and probably gave ICANN management a warm, fuzzy feeling. As for industry, they were responsible for a lot of coffee being spilled due to people laughing.

The .CARS gTLD has potential. It is sill very small but it needs a kind of brand champion effect with some of the big name brands getting behind it. That requires some good marketing by Uniregistry.

Regards...jmcc

 

[jmcc]

The other problem is, it's run by Uniregistry. They've made huge prices hikes and at anytime can, double, triple, quadruple renewal fees.

That move did upset a lot of registrants but the warehousing of keyword domain names by Uniregistry was far more damaging as it killed domainer support and actually prevented development in some of those gTLDs. Running a registry is different to domaining and one of the hardest tasks that a registry has is to kickstart growth in its TLDs via marketing. Another interesting thing is that development rates in more expensive TLDs tend to be better than those in normal reg-fee TLDs like .COM and much better than perpetually discounted NGTs.

Build a world class website and get world class renewal fees.
https://domainnamewire.com/2017/03/13/godaddy-drops-uniregistry-domain-names-due-to-price-hike/

Godaddy will do what is in the best interests of Godaddy but Uniregistry's price hikes caused a lot of ill-will and hassle for Godaddy. Even if the economic arguments for Uniregistry's move were good, it lost "shelf space" on the largest registrar in the world. If a new TLD that intends to hit the US market is not on Godaddy, it effectively is setting itself up to fail. Uniregistry is great as a registrar but was still learning how to be a registry operator when it made the decision to to hike the fees. However, the reality was that some of Uniregistry's gTLDs had almost flatlined in terms of growth because of the sheer volume of premium domain names that were held back.

Regards...jmcc