question Should new gtlds be viewed through the lens of a 20 year plan?

[equity78]

I have been under the weather this weekend so I have not been reading texts and emails right away as normal. A few people were mentioning to me the post we did a few days ago about new gtld sales. The comments become the classic com fans vs non com fans. Matt wrote one that challenged Rick Schwartz, Matt seemed to be questioning why if he had a 20 year plan for .com, why don't new gtlds get … [Read more...]

 

[HotKey]

Well, many early new G' adopters have been saying this from the get-go. There was some successful turnaround at the beginning by some investors, others who continue with a keen eye for quality reg's and drops, while others like myself chose the long road by building to a point and sticking to it. But most agree that general adoption in the new gTLDs will likely take years. The risk is if at all.

What I have found interesting is the cold shoulder to the obvious: There are better fits and more sensible approaches to domain representation for identities than most of the legacy tld's will ever have. We are talking exact fits to ideas, brands and products.

Getting back to the question of a 20 year plan, this strategy is not newly conceived. But many new entrants today in domain investing have not experienced "wait times". With technology at their fingertips, they are used to getting things immediately. Quick profits. Even a year is far too long. This is one reason there are so many dropouts. In the 90's, heck there was dial-up, we were used to waiting for things. The internet was new, and so was dot-com. RS's vision made sense. A 20 year vision now isn't nearly as appealing. Why wait, when an investor can take a .com, warp it into a "brandable", a typo, or whatever, and convince a business to buy it because basically the rest of the world uses it too?

The gTLDs do have a 5,10, 20 year plan now, but it's an uphill battle. We are trying to penetrate a market that already took 20 years to accept the gold standard for an online base, so we shouldn't expect anything less for a new paradigm to take hold.

 

[JB Lions]

Well, many early new G' adopters have been saying this from the get-go.

That's just not true. I remember those threads. It was 3 years, 5 years, then a few years went buy, it became 10 years. Nobody at the beginning said 20 years. I can literally quote, 3, 5, 10 years, but I don't think you can quote a 20 years when these came out. The can is getting kicked down the road.

Quite a few things can happen in 5-10 years.

I always cringe when I see someone trying to flip some not even good new gTLD domain within a year timeframe, particularly when extension of that domain name is not even a 1 year old...so there is no aftermarket formed yet...it might easily take 5-10 years for that aftermarket to be formed.

--------------------------------------------
Namepros didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Some of what you touched on like the speed of things nowadays, is why it doesn't take 20 years to see if something is going to work. That's just a long time. It's just a different era vs. .com. That was always the main one, a general one. vs. hundreds of niche extensions.

Just checking out some old threads. I remember the original prediction was 33 million total regs..........by 2014. It's 2019, still haven't hit it.

http://domainincite.com/18857-new-g...ampaign=Feed:+DomainIncite+(DomainIncite.com)

 

[garptrader]

How many years do we need to wait for .Net, .Info, .TV domain sales to be as common as .Com? Seven years ago I probably would have said my best domains were .TV and a few years prior .Net but after all these years where are the buyers? Most of the world places little value / importance on domain selection. Thus, the real estate analogy does not apply for them. They can always add an extra word, a few characters use an abbreviation, add a number, a hyphen, use a different extension or avoid domains completely by using a social media platform. Until that changes and aftermarket domain purchases become mainstream, aftermarket ntld sales will be no more common than legacy alternative extensions sales - which currently are random outliers.

 

[HotKey]

That's just not true. I remember those threads. It was 3 years, 5 years, then a few years went buy, it became 10 years. Nobody at the beginning said 20 years. I can literally quote, 3, 5, 10 years, but I don't think you can quote a 20 years when these came out. The can is getting kicked down the road.

10, 15, 20 years from now we are going to see many of these gTLD's in mainstream use. There will most certainly be one's that come out ahead with more popular results, just as COM did against NET/ORG/BIZ/PRO. There will also certainly be massive fails. You can't launch the most massive namespace venture in the history of the Internet without some hiccups. Filtering out the duds is an important part of the operation.

I think we will also find 20 years from now as the Internet gets more and more sophisticated the namespaces will also reflect that. It's probable ne gTLD releases will become a common, affordable everyday event, suited to each individual or business needs.

people will be saying the same thing about new gTLDs 20 years from now.

No one's saying any specific TLD will ever become as successful as .com, why does the argument keep coming back to that? And we can't keep calling every sale an outlier, just because they don't occur often enough to compare to the measure of success enjoyed by what we're used to.

 

[JB Lions]

No one's saying any specific TLD will ever become as successful as .com, why does the argument keep coming back to that? And we can't keep calling every sale an outlier, just because they don't occur often enough to compare to the measure of success enjoyed by what we're used to.

I never said that, as successful as .com. I said you really can't compare them because they're different animals, started in different eras. .com was at the beginning of the internet, hell, even existed before you can use them to make sites. And then I mentioned the 20 years, I don't remember anybody saying anything about 20 years when these came out. You can simply go and read some of the first threads. 20 years from now, people should be enjoying the fruits of their domain investments, not wondering if they're going to pay off. 20 years seems a little out there but if you feel it takes 20 years, ok, good luck.

 

[tomcarl]

May consider choosing one or two with the best likelihood to become a short-term fad but ultimately these things will always be a stepping stone until the option to upgrade isn't available.

 

[oldtimer]

In my opinion if you were lucky enough to get a few New gTLDs at standard renewals then you might as well try to hang on to them for as long as you can and see how things develop in the future, but I wouldn't get hundreds or thousands of New gTLDs at high renewal charges hoping that they'll become popular in the next twenty years, that formula is just not practical for domainers, the only ones that can do that are the registries themselves.

IMO

 

[jmcc]

Just checking out some old threads. I remember the original prediction was 33 million total regs..........by 2014. It's 2019, still haven't hit it.

As covered in the Domnomics book, it comes down to ICANN management getting things wrong. It got some academics who knew little all about the domain name industry to come with papers to support the idea of "competition" for its push for new gTLDs when in reality the issue was one of demand. To people outside the industry, TLDs seem to be competing. The reality is more complex. Registrants will often protect their brand across TLDs. With the multitude of new gTLDs, that became too expensive for large brand owners. The lack of that registrations boost kept the initial numbers on many new gTLDs low. There was also the problem of people claiming to be be expert advisors when in reality they had no expertise on registry operations or what is involved with marketing and running a successful TLD.

This lack of expert advice led to some registries being unaware of the costs and effort required to build a successful TLD. They were equally let down by ICANN's utterly clueless decision to dump all the new gTLDs on to the market in a very short period. This meant that new gTLD registries did not have a chance to get their gTLD established in the market.

Some registries did not help matters by reserving or self-registering most of the premiums in their gTLDs. That meant no landrush and no domainers. Without the landrush spike of registrations, there was mo initial publicity boost and the registries were left with more marketing expenses.

It can take up to five years for a TLD to become established and for usage patterns to emerge. The problem is that a lot of people have no understanding of how TLDs become established in their markets and almost have a belief that it happens by magic. It does not. TLDs become established through marketing, interest, renewals and usage. If a registry gets one of these aspects wrong then the TLD will remain small. The terrible warning of .WED's business plan to discourage renewals by massive price hikes after the first few renewals effectively killed the gTLD. It is has been stuck in ICANN's EBERO process for zombie gTLDs since 2018.

It is easy for people to talk of twenty year periods but the reality is that many new gTLDs are still struggling to make it past the five year mark without having to resort to filling the gTLD with heavily discounted junk registrations that do not renew or hoping that the gTLD will be bought out in a fire sale by a portfolio operator.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Sorry you were under the weather @equity78 and thank you for the post.

I am not sure I necessarily would argue 20 years, things do move faster in tech years wise now, but the idea that early investments involve risk and will take time to pay off is comparable.

I agree with key points @HotKey made. I think that powerful combinations of word+extension have an elegant unique aspect and I think on some time period will have value. I am not sure that less quality names will ever appreciate much.

As @jmcc says unfortunate for investors that many of these in registry hands. Also true that ultimately end use matters in supporting quality, and that is a challenging and slow game.

Bob

 

[platey]

Gtlds are the future

I've been buying gtlds for reg fee since January 2014

And owned some proper peach gtlds whilst have to listen to the dot com is everything spiel from seasoned domain name investors

My

Venture. finance

Gtld has no value to dot com investors

It's only the shortest possible version of the two keywords on earth

The hobbyist

Lol

Blocked by rs on twit lol

And blocked by

the domains

Too lol

Ironically I am also the original registrant of

Sports. Legal

Which went on to be bought by one of the biggest legal firms on earth proving that end users understand gtlds just those that ought to Eg. Com quite domain name investors quite obviously dont

My

Sports. finance

Is also the shortest possible version of the two keywords on earth which I bought for reg fee

None of these would be accepted for the Namescon Auction in January because the auction still is predominantly. Com investors etc so I won't bother wasting my time listing them for Namescon though they could be for sale Subject to price

 

[oldtimer]

As covered in the Domnomics book, it comes down to ICANN management getting things wrong. It got some academics who knew little all about the domain name industry to come with papers to support the idea of "competition" for its push for new gTLDs when in reality the issue was one of demand. To people outside the industry, TLDs seem to be competing. The reality is more complex. Registrants will often protect their brand across TLDs. With the multitude of new gTLDs, that became too expensive for large brand owners. The lack of that registrations boost kept the initial numbers on many new gTLDs low. There was also the problem of people claiming to be be expert advisors when in reality they had no expertise on registry operations or what is involved with marketing and running a successful TLD.

This lack of expert advice led to some registries being unaware of the costs and effort required to build a successful TLD. They were equally let down by ICANN's utterly clueless decision to dump all the new gTLDs on to the market in a very short period. This meant that new gTLD registries did not have a chance to get their gTLD established in the market.

Some registries did not help matters by reserving or self-registering most of the premiums in their gTLDs. That meant no landrush and no domainers. Without the landrush spike of registrations, there was mo initial publicity boost and the registries were left with more marketing expenses.

It can take up to five years for a TLD to become established and for usage patterns to emerge. The problem is that a lot of people have no understanding of how TLDs become established in their markets and almost have a belief that it happens by magic. It does not. TLDs become established through marketing, interest, renewals and usage. If a registry gets one of these aspects wrong then the TLD will remain small. The terrible warning of .WED's business plan to discourage renewals by massive price hikes after the first few renewals effectively killed the gTLD. It is has been stuck in ICANN's EBERO process for zombie gTLDs since 2018.

It is easy for people to talk of twenty year periods but the reality is that many new gTLDs are still struggling to make it past the five year mark without having to resort to filling the gTLD with heavily discounted junk registrations that do not renew or hoping that the gTLD will be bought out in a fire sale by a portfolio operator.

Regards...jmcc

I believe that how the price of the domains were incorporated into the renewal charges were wrong and have caused people to think twice about getting a New gTLD, no one likes to get stuck with a large yearly bill that is going to go on forever with no hopes of being able to pay off the domain eventually. They should have separated the domain financing part from the renewal charges so that people would know that they could own the domain after lets say 5 or 10 years and then just pay standard renewals after that.

IMO

 

[Internet.Domains]

For some of us we didn't have to wait 20 yrs. Although, I invested with a 20 year window.

I only own a handful of NewG's. I purchased most of them in the early access period and got the best ones when the collision list was released in the summer of 2015. (Some of you will remember)

I have already profited enough to pay for all of the domains and pay the renewals for 20 years. My best domain, purchased off the collision list, gets offers that will hit the record books when/if I sell.

NewG investing is not for everyone. Besides waiting for profit, you get labeled by the .com maximalist's. The conversations over the years have been very heated. Unfortunately, many conversations have strayed far from professional discourse. As a result many invest in NewG's, but never speak publicly about it.

The best combinations are now gone for the most part. That ship has sailed. Although, some can be found in the aftermarket that leave meat on the bone if you are willing to wait it out. Maybe wait 20 years, maybe less. All domain investing is a wait and see, regardless if .com or NewG.

 

[JB Lions]

NewG investing is not for everyone. Besides waiting for profit, you get labeled by the .com maximalist's. The conversations over the years have been very heated. Unfortunately, many conversations have strayed far from professional discourse. As a result many invest in NewG's, but never speak publicly about it.

As far as that, if you really look at when those threads go off course, it's usually a few things. Many times it's when somebody starts off saying something about .com, that's just off. Like .com is going to fail, .commers are worried, that kind of stuff = off the track. Then you have those that invest like fancy.domains where it's more, I invest in these simply because I expect to get more than I paid for it. None of the extra nonsense. It's how I felt when I invested in .me. Not once did I say .me was going to topple .com or .commers are worried. It was simple. I pay x for a .me, I made many times over when selling. That's it.

Another place it goes off the tracks is when threads get started talking about sales. But they don't mention the sale price, don't even mention the name. If you start such threads, you're going to get questions, because it's very easy to post stuff that's not true. Threads like that, invite questions.

Or something you just posted:

"My best domain, purchased off the collision list, gets offers that will hit the record books when/if I sell."

Record books? I don't remember the highest new gtld sale but I remember some $500,000+ right. So you're saying you're getting those type of offers and just not selling? I'm just not buying that. Those type of posts come off as fluffing, hyping the market up. If you're getting half million offers on your new gtlds, take them.

As far as talking publicly about new gtlds, many do. They're honest about it. There was also a forum dedicted to it, basically all new gtlders, it folded.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Record books? I don't remember the highest new gtld sale but I remember some $500,000+ right. So you're saying you're getting those type of offers and just not selling?

Fair enough. The domain is Home(.)Services. I understand if your skeptical, that is fair. I often carry skepticism myself, its human nature. Some have more, some have less. I don't judge.

Peace!

 

[HotKey]

JD, you have a great holiday brother.

 

[Lox]

What to expect from nGTLD registries when you're expecting to see a bulletproof mainstream ads (Internet, Podcasts, Radio talk shows, local TV etc). They don't wish or don't know how to use Youtube ... to not mention an endless, in-the-loop, automated tweets and a very rare + sloppy interactions with ... end-users. First thing first; an advertising campaign and communications plan prepared by pro ads agency.

Regards