The future of .COM after new gTLDs boom! Big DROP?!

[New.Life]

According to the data and this simple chart:

http://www.registrarstats.com/TLDDomainCounts.aspx

Is there a BIG drop? Coming soon?

 

[jmcc]

There is a lot of concentration on the domainer view of the domain name business in this thread at the expense of how businesses and end users look at domains. There is also an extrapolation of the idea that what was successful in .COM would be successful in the new gTLDs either as keywords or as domain hacks (that's actually what some of these "premium" new gTLDs are in reality).

What is worrying is how registries withold premium domains or try to auction them later in a drip feed. Many of the new gTLDs are still relatively unproven gTLDs so there's no real floor values for premiums and the premiums are based on prior data from other gTLDs.

It does take a few years, typically three to five, for a newly launched TLD to stabilise. The first two years or so of a new TLD are always abnormal in terms of registration and renewal patterns (yes, I have the data and study this kind of stuff) and web development and usage (I also run periodic web usage analysis surveys of all the new gTLDs and other gTLDs and ccTLDs.)

The domain footprint for most developed country level markets is dominated by the local ccTLD and .COM TLD. Together, they can occupy over 80% of that country's domain marketplace. The remaining 20% or so is filled with the legacy gTLDs (NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI/ASIA) and ccTLDs from adjacent countries (.EU in the EU for example). This is the market segment in which most new gTLDs are trying to succeed. Some of the geo gTLDs have a large enough target market to make them pseudo-ccTLDs.

Some new gTLDs have become regional market TLDs in that they are dominated by countries from a region. This means that if you are pitching an English language keyword in a new gTLD that has an overwhelmingly non-English speaking registrant base, then you are out of luck. You would be better spending your time trying to sell a two or three word .COM to a market you understand.

The Mom and Pop section of the web development market is a crucial one for any new TLD. That's where a lot of development and promotion orginates. But despite being innovators and entrepreneurs, it is a conservative group in that it is more likely to use a .COM or a .ccTLD. The reason for this is that most of these businesses are local not global. And their target market is generally more familiar with .COM or the local .ccTLD. But some of them do develop websites and businesses on newly launched TLDs.

The .COM has gone legacy in some countries with a strong local ccTLD. That means that it is not the first choice TLD in these markets. The first choice TLD is the local ccTLD followed by .COM. To people in the USA, where .COM is the de facto ccTLD, that can be shocking. But .COM isn't really a single market. It is, like many other TLDs, a small global market with a large set of country level markets.

Rather than arguing about which new gTLD will be a .COM killer and whether new gTLDs will replace .COM, it might be better to focus on understanding where the registrant base for these new gTLDs is located and the kind of domain names that they are buying in other TLDs rather than applying the old "if it is valuable in .COM, it is valuable in every TLD" methodology.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Kuffy]

So you startr a business, and you look for a .com name. You can't find one, so you use one from a fancy new registry. Your business expands, and you notice you are losing traffic to the .com of the same name. You save up your money, and buy the ,com to continue your expansion.

That doesn't sound like a drop to me.

 

[Brands.International]

If there is too much competition, now I'm wondering why people don't just ignore any comments on namepros saying new TLDs suck.. Then you can have them all to yourselves. I guess because you think we are unconvinceable anyway so it doesn't matter. And you don't mind discussing it occasionally like me.

Well, this is very good point. I will explain it to you as I have it personally:

On one hand, every time there is a huge stream of anti new gTLD posts in some threads on NamePros, I, and other gTLD investors, we actually have great buying opportunities here. I have bough lot of nice new gTLD domains from members here, for few bucks. People are dropping or selling very cheaply sometimes very good new gTLD names, often after they are reading posts from naysayers. They do not realize that those few people who are constantly posting anti new gTLD posts here are very biased. Nobody from them has any new gTLDs investments whatsoever, no experience, no contacts in this area, absolutely nothing. Just their opinions. Because, opinions are for free, aren't they?

As far as I know, one of them is actually sitting on very nice .com porfolio. Another one spent years to build large ccTLD portolio. There is also a guy who invested about year ago in new gTLD domains, but names he picked were simple one of the worst I have ever seen. He had to drop then all of them, and since then he is saying that new gTLDs does not work. Well it sure has not worked for him. I think my favorite from this small camp is a person who is for long time trying unsuccessfully selling somewhat obscure .link domain, while in parallel he is posting tons of gTLD bashing links in every thread he visits. While I fully understand incentives of other naysayers, I can not simply wrap my mind around this one, I simply does not understand it. But all is ok. I mean, I have my fun here, and I am buying very cheaply. This is one aspect of it.

On the other hand, there is something what is called a morale, or sense of community. If I would be driven only from opportunistic forces, I would join the naysayers and and start bashing too! But I like to also share information and enjoy the people here, and so I sometimes I get into discussions like in this thread, and say my opinion. I am persuaded 100% that new Gs are true opportunity for everyone, and I also believe one should be very careful to listen to people who are heavily investing in com or ccTLDs...do you really think that someone who spent years to build valuable .com portfolio will tell you ANYTHING nice about new gTLD domains which directly threats his or her own business? I particularly do not like some appraisals from senior members, when it comes to new gTLDs..just recently I saw new member here, joined day ago,, he posted pretty valuable new gTLD domains, very nice list..each of them can easily fetch few hundreds to low thousands even in solid new gTLD re seller market (I am not even speaking about end users here)..and what senior member told him (guy who is here from 2003!!!) - he told him his domains are of no value, and he should put them to auction starting $1 to basically get rid of them. If I see this kind of "advice", I interact, because it is a pure disgrace.

I am also biased, as you can see from my portfolio, as I am new gTLD enthusiast.
But, at least I tell it openly, and I do not go to .com and ccTLD threads, and spread my "valuable opinions" there.

So you see, it is kind of ambivalent position here. One one hand, gTLD bashing is great for purchases, but in parallel, one simply does not feel good to listen it all the time.

I hope it helped

 

[dordomai]

Deeply flawed comparison. New extensions are not new technology, they work exactly like 'old' extensions. The DNS is flexible and can support new services as the Internet evolves.

The whole .com is 'inferior' technology and outdated hype is just marketing nonsense.

A few other myths dispelled:

- Millennials prefer nGTLDs.

No they prefer .com like everyone else because all their websites are there.

- Millennials will bring change to the DNS.

No their startups choose .com like everyone else.

- The generation born today will learn to use nGTLDs

So far they learn that their favorite websites are under .com

- The generation born today will not want .com

Who cares? They will move the market when the are middle-aged. 45 years from now.

- Big brands will bring change and switch to .brand

Home.Brand is horrible and they avoided switching to far.

- nGTLDs are shorter

Usually it's the opposite(home.brand vs. brand.com vs. brand.keyword) but the the proponents like to show a few examples where this isn't the case. Also shorter doesn't mean more popular. .co will never be as popular as .com

- nGTLDs boost SEO equally well that is why they will be bought instead of .com

Few domains are being bought solely because of the exact match advantage. Google doesn't give much weight to exact match anymore. Today domains are being bought for branding.

- I have WORD1.WORD2 and Word1Word2.com is worth 6 figures therefore my WORD1.WORD2 is worth 6 figures because it is even better.

You could as well argue that word.co is worth as much as word.com. The market doesn't think that way and it doesn't work that way in the real world. There isn't the same demand for .co as there is demand for .com. Prices are the result of supply and demand.

With the nGTLDs there is a lot of supply but little demand. Not good if you want to get high prices.

- Google, Facebook, Microsoft invest in nGTLDs and will bringe change.

Google invest in a lot of things but so far little suggest that they are that they are too interested in changing the DNS. If they could they would probably eliminate domain names as they want to fully control every aspect of internet navigation.

- Company XY uses nGTLD. The nGTLDs are coming.

99 out of 100 cases the opposite is true but it doesn't get reported because it is so common.
When a company chooses a .biz or a .info or a .net strangely nothing is reported. Probably because it has always happened but never amounted to anything.

- Amazon or insert any other tech giant has registered many nGTLDs and planning something big

99% of the registrations that we see are protective. If they don't protect their IP it could be weakened making it harder to defend. They don't want to do this but they need to. Protective regs are zombies in the zone.

- The nGTLDs are new and innovative and the new will always replace the old.

Most innovative products never succeed in the marketplace. Just like most startups will fail.
It's more likely that a new product will fail rather than succeed. Historically the odds are stacked against this type of thing. It's just that we tend to forget about the failures(or never learn about them) and remember the few things that truly changed our world.

- nGTLDs are a huge money maker

I don't doubt that some speculators can make money with many different types of extensions.

On average I doubt that they are very profitable. The registries seem to struggle to make money so far it seems despite holding most of the premium keywords.

MMX, CentralNic and Rightside stocks all down I believe. If the registries are not doing so well will domainers do much better?

- The emerging markets will choose nGTLDs and make them great.

This is not true at all. They show the same behaviour patterns and gravitate vs. .com and their ccTLDs. nGTLDs are even worse options for emerging markets compared to the US. They are not English native speakers and local nGTLD options in their own language are usually not available or very limited.

 

[Kuffy]

Some years ago, I lived in a house in a road with the name "Lakeside". Now in the UK most roads and streets end with road, street, close, grove, crescent, avenue or one of a host of alternatives. Any variation from this seems to cause confusion. I often had letters delivered that were addressed to lakeside avenue or lakeside road. In Petersfield, there is a road called the Spain, and there have been cases where letters addressed to residents have been re-routed through Spain ( the country ). All this indicates the potential for confusion in domain names. If one thinks of the extension as a country, then com, net and others are easily recognised, but nobody thinks of insurance or holiday as a country, and these are the ones that I believe are most vulnerable to traffic loss. Extensions like xyz are going to have to struggle to get recognition, but I think they have more chance of gaining acceptance.

 

[Kate]

Anybody here still use an Osborne 1 computer? or how about a Mortolla brick phone, dial-up connection, DOS, floppy discs, pager?

Deeply flawed comparison. New extensions are not new technology, they work exactly like 'old' extensions. The DNS is flexible and can support new services as the Internet evolves.

 

[ecalc]

Remember kids born in 2000 will be salary earners in 2018, and will become a substantial part of the work force by 2020. They are the ones who "grew up" with NGTLD's and they will be the ones that big companies will be targeting to capture their disposable income.

This deep fact based observation that today's 16 year old grew up with ngtlds causes me to doubt my blind faith in dot com. Whoever said “pioneers take the arrows and settlers take the land” was never faced with an opportunity like dot horse. Kids love ponies and nothing says family time like a day at the track. Your command of logic and economics is unlike any we have seen here in a long time. Thank you for debunk debugging the FUD about ngtlds.

 

[garptrader]

Newbies are correct that it is very difficult to find good .COM domains because the really good ones were taken fifteen to twenty years ago. Yes, you can lose money with .COM too. The danger with newbies registering new TLDs is that they still have not learned what makes a good domain name so they are likely to not be as selective as they should be. Selling domain names at a premium price is not nearly as easy as it seems to those entering the industry and reading weekly sales reports. It should also be noted that a large portion of published new TLD sales are registry sales as the registries can price their domains, auction them or hold them as reserved as they choose. Investors have to pick over the leftovers.

 

[garptrader]

The only hope for new TLD and alternative TLD (.net, .CO, .TV etc) investors is a booming interest in buying aftermarket domains at premium prices to promote businesses. The argument of keyword.whatever is cheaper than the .COM so end users should be buying my .whatevers has generally not worked out well. Why is it that domainers are dropping .net, .info, .tv and other extensions? Inadequate demand. Many end users are unwilling to pay more than reg fee and often opt for social media accounts to promote their businesses. It is hard enough to sell .COM domains. Sales ratios in alternative extensions are generally lower than .COM despite the ease of obtaining better keywords.

 

[Kate]

Thankfully the creator of the DNS doesn't think the way you do. It is more efficient because each niche is segmented by registry and regulated by the owners of that registry. This adoption is a reflection of how humans have advanced technology.

But human beings don't work like that. It's techie talk. Industry-specific TLDs are not new, and have not done well.
I think the reason is that the importance of branding in domain names is too often underestimated. .com carries a lot of branding value and global status, while ccTLDs carry a sense of identity and belonging, more than that: national pride.
So domain strings cannot be easily replaced by others, because they are not purely technical identifiers. They are branding tools. Technically there is no difference between them. That does not make them all equal though.

Your reasoning is based on very common myths like:

• the young generation is going to embrace new extensions => not likely as they have grown up in a dotcom world... it's just a way of moving the goalposts forever. People should be flocking to new extensions right now, but they aren't because they haven't been waiting for them.
  
• .com is saturated, therefore end users are desperate and willing to use arbitrary strings. Fact: alternate extensions have never been popular. Adding thousands more to the root doesn't change the fact.
  
• .com is overpriced: few domains are selling for millions, unless you aim for the cream of the crop. Low $,$$$ is a more representative price for an aftermarket purchase. Most people don't want to pay more than regfee so they get 'creative'.
  
• new extensions are necessary to satisfy end user demand => the demand has always been vastly overestimated, and the supply is now overabundant. At least icann have satisfied their own demands #moneygrab

My solution: don't try to be Nostradamus, invest in what already works today. Look at what real people are using in the real world. But watch out for future trends.

 

[168]

I know who Mockapetris is, and I have a lot of respect for Internet pioneers.
He knows about tech, but does not dictate trends or end user choices.
It's good to listen to other people, but recognize when they are venturing outside their field of expertise. Marketing is not his thing. I wouldn't take investment lessons from a computer scientist.

In plain English for end users ?

Because we are noobs I started domaining last week.

Seriously, if you are basing your investments on one single opinion, no matter how authoritative, you're wearing blinders on.
Personally I am more interested in observing reality. Until I see new extensions gaining traction in the real world (not just in virtual numbers) I am skeptical.
.biz has been around for 15 years, and it is used by real end users. It has 2.5M regs today. Yet domainers have never been excited about it. Nobody takes it seriously.
But now domainers are excited about strings that get fewer than 50K regs because they are - so we are told - the future. What about accounting for the present ?

"Seriously, if you are basing your investments on one single opinion, no matter how authoritative, you're wearing blinders on".

Seriously, quite a bold assumption on your part. A rather extreme statement. I would add I wouldn't base my investments on an "observer" either. An observers opinion is just as worthless since they don't have any skin in the game. Caution is good and so is enthusiasm. Your skepticism is understandable given the crap alternate choices of the past. The choices today are far better and much more relevant. "Waiting" to "see" which ones will stick isn't a strategy that investors subscribe to and investors are absolutely necessary to create the foundation of an aftermarket. End users don't create aftermarkets. What they buy and use are off of the
market. The domain "Market" would be dismal not even close to what it is today without good and bad investors.
Crappy .com inventories are going to drop just as fast as crappy New "G"s. Of course good .coms will remain. So will good New "G"s
and if you choose to wait then you miss the best buys. As the saying goes the profit is in the buy.

The future isn't possible without walking away from the present as the present is always moving toward the past.

Cheers

 

[Kate]

....
I don't know anyone who buys guns or owns guns or even thinks about guns but if I saw Gun.Shop was available for a decent renewal, I'd grab it in a heartbeat. Your logic states I shouldn't even bother. The amount of fallacious thinkers on this thread is incredible.

I wouldn't buy the domain in that TLD personally. But in a more popular extension I would, even .us. Of course many people don't own guns, but there is a market for guns nonetheless. No question about it. What I am questioning is the size of the market for new extensions and whether it's big enough to bother (as an investor).
My experience is obviously 'biased' because I visit websites on legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs on a daily basis. I usually don't visit sites on new extensions, at least not repeatedly. On the other hand I see a lot of spam in new extensions. But my experience is not unlike that of other, normal people. People tend to trust extensions they are familiar with, and ignore the others.

Something we can agree on. The possibility of domains being irrelevant in 20 years. Something we don't agree on.

Now it's getting interesting. Some domainers are doubting domain names will still be relevant in 20 years. Why not. But at the same time, some domainers are thinking new extensions are the future, and obviously new registries think the same, or they are not in for the long haul. But we also know that new extensions will need a lot of time to mature and gain acceptance - if that ever happens. So the window of opportunity is between a few years from now on and 20 years... but should you even invest in domain names then ?
I am more confident than that in the DNS.
To put things in perspective I have been a member at NP for 11 years and domaining since 1999. I think the Internet will still exist in 20 years, and domain names will remain relevant as long as companies need to advertise and brand themselves online. Domain names were unimportant between 1984 and 1993 because the WWW wasn't still around. Global commerce is what made domain names become strategic tools in the online arena.

PS: sorry for the tit for tat

 

[168]

Kate,
To put things in perspective, I have been domaining since 1999. I think the Internet will still exist in 20 years
I still have a hand full of 1999's/2000's simply out of nostalgia. I refer to them as my virgins. I'm not the only one that keeps them just for fun. In the chinese market, some trade/collect domains like baseball cards! Very few "care" if they are used or not, Corp. clients have hundreds just in case they decide they have a need for them.I have a client that has their own extension. It's nobody's business what they do with it . there is no rule that you have to use them in the way they were intended or you shouldn't buy them. That's why the "end user" drama is BS. People invest in lots of things and shelve them until they have a need to liquidate. It's not crime. It's not even a thought. Nor does it make it an illegitimate sale for statistical purposes. . yet that mindset exists in domains. No logic. Should a home sale not count because the owner uses it only once every 5 years? Should it be confiscated because it's not being used for it's intended use even thou there is no identifiable harm to a strangers claim they have superior rights just because your not using it? Absurd!

I bring out the brick phone once in a while. put it next to a smart phone and it's difficult to imagine it was once cutting edge, "state of the art". The internet of things wasn't even a thought in anyone's mind yet we're here now.

I don't believe the internet will operate in the same manner as it is today. Similar to : "Wireless" from"wired", one tap to connect vs dialing in.or a main frame to a device the size of your hand. Evolving to voice is a no brainer. How it will operate on the scale of the internet is the most exciting question. I most definitely believe in pondering the possibilities. The most important trait in "trail blazers" and advancing the human species. If one can believe that, it's not too much of a stretch to have a little faith in what the domain trail blazers are trying to accomplish regardless if other people believe they are just being self serving. More times than not it leads to insights others do not see. Most commonly referred to as scientific "breakthroughs" or "advancements" in many fields when really someone just took the time to think.
While Shane is a bit crass he certainly possesses the ability to think beyond today and appears to stay informed of advancements
that most people aren't even aware exist.
"So the window of opportunity is between a few years from now on and 20 years... but should you even invest in domain names then?"
Of course!
It's like asking if one should even participate in life knowing of an expiration date but not knowing the exact date. Probability suggests you would be missing out by not participating simply because you are "aware" of the possibility of expiring.

"But we also know that new extensions will need a lot of time to mature and gain acceptance"
Do we know? It's an erroneous assumption that doesn't take into account "breakthroughs" or "advancements"
Most people today are "aware" and use the technology as if they were born with it attached.. It's not at all necessary for them to understand how it works. Most don't know how any of the technology they use works let alone have the desire to know how a domain works. To suggest a need to gain acceptance is also erroneous. When I tell people what is available today the most common answer I get is cool ! great idea! because they have tried to obtain a domain useful to them and failed or settled like dordomai suggests people do. I wouldn't think of recommending .com just because when there are great alternates. The increase in start up use of "others" supports this. There is plenty of .coms to choose from yet they don't. there is renewed enthusiasm and interest to try again. Not once has anyone asked are they safe? will people be able to find us? The mood cools a bit when I go into a lengthy explanation of why some cost more to reg.
People have the same reaction as domainers. it's BS The good thing is they are still willing to look into it.

" my experience is not unlike that of other, normal people. People tend to trust extensions they are familiar with, and ignore the others."
How is it people ignore extensions that you and dordomai previously claimed "they don't even know they exist"
People are aware of bogus sites and emails. Yet it is most common people get ripped off via legit business hacks.
Do they stop going there ? NO Most people I know are "aware" to be more vigilant with their trust they are not
just ignoring everything that isn't blue.

 

[wwwweb]

It all depends on the risk appetite and preferences of the end user/investor buying the domain. Its wrong to throw out random numbers like 97% simply because we cannot quantify scenarios with infinite possibilities. In some cases renewals are a problem, in others it isn't...you can't even say "most" because there is an incredible amount of variance since no one trade scenario is the same when selling/acquiring domains. You still point out a relevant issue that I'm sure is taken into consideration.

The only people who have made money in GTLD's are the guys with deep pockets who grabbed the top quality stuff before the premiums got jacked, or the registries who got suckers to pay up for high premium domains.

There are tens of thousand good premium domains sitting unregistered.

97% comes from people who have made money with GTLD's if they price in what they have invested, paid in renewals, and got out of it, including their time, and effort. It is just not happening.

I know you guys want to think you came along in 2015, and found gold, but it is just not the case.

You will continue to make the odd sale, but you will pile it all back in, along with paying above average, and premium renewals, the business plan just does not work across a broad spectrum.

They aren't giving any good names on the cheap, and cheap, look at what .blog just did.

They have taken you out of the game, before it even started.

There are guys here who say what is $1200 to a big company, who have never talked to a person who makes the call on that, just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true. First off you want to be paid a end user price for the domain, then you want to pass the buck on a $1200 premium, get real, across the board that will equal failure.

If you got the right keywords in 2014, and maybe scalped a few in 2015 off the reserve lists with low enough premiums, you might have a chance to grind out some profit. All the guys registered every scenario .company or whatever without wondering why the .com sits unbought for $988 from buydomains for past few years, and all other extensions are unregistered are part of the 97% that just want to believe what they want.

These guys are great for the industry, because they throw stupid money at everything, and make everyones portfolio worth more.

 

[Phgauge000]

Renewal rates can and will make a difference for someone holding on to a large inventory . That being said , small- mid size ant large companies alike ; depending on their business model ,volume and profitably can certainly budget 1200 a year a renewals . Yes , I also admit I don't have a masters ; although I have had several work for me through the years . My brick and motar buisness is relatively small for our industry and we spend 60k a month on marketing. So if someone had name that could potentially impact our marketing even if it's used to measure the success of other medias 1200 a year is negligible.

On a side note ; as some have stated most of us that have speculated heavy in the new gtlds don't come on here or other forums to defend our strategy every day. I have shared over 100k of reported gTLD sales with dnjournal just so others can see there is some traction taking place. As others have stated there is no need for me to talk others into competing with me on the drops and or eap releases. There are many non reported sales happening every day.

.com is great but it's not the only choice . As a market continues to evolve we can see shifts in demand for every product/ service . Nothing is a known fact until it has happened . Ford at one time had almost 100 percent market share . Now the market has grown and fragmented , brands like Toyota were at one time considered cheap inferior products but still an alternitive to the big 3 , well as history has shown , things can change .. What was considered inferior not only stole market share but eventually fought its way to a very large part of the total market and is considered a quality product .

At one time Woolworth Corp was very successful , Kmart the same , Sears ... MySpace ... Aol... And on and on .. Consumer demand can change , so anyone that says unilateral comments like gtlds are dead , have no use , purpose please keep saying it. This will help,the people that want to speculate in this area have less competition.

 

[Kate]

Three certainties in life:
Death
Taxes
Domainers arguing about new extensions forever

 

[Kate]

Whot??
Here's the history
It took .com 6 years to get 2m+ registrations with zero competition which is where the New "G"s were in 1 with hundreds of competitors
It took 8 years to get to 20+m registrations 1992 to 2000, which is where the New "G"s are in 3 with hundreds of competition
It took 12 years to get to a growth rally. Most of the growth for legacy's occurred in the last 12 years.

....

How convenient to compare a start up to an established monopoly
How convenient you assert a parallel of the first 6 years/no competition vs 3years/hundreds of competitors

Happy Hunting

It's true, it's hard to compare 'back then' vs 'now'. The circumstances are completely different.

In 1993 the Internet simply wasn't mature, even the infrastructure was not ready. In the early days few people had an internet connection at home and they were often on 14.4K modems... it's normal that the early growth was less exponential.

While there are millions of new extensions registered today we know very well that the figures are hugely inflated and a big portion of that growth is purely artificial and not sustainable. Until 1999 .com domains cost $50/year. Price dotcom domains at $0.01 and you will see the stats take off
Simple zone file analysis also indicates massive speculation in many extensions (parking rate >= 50%), the registries being the biggest speculators. Of course there is a lot of speculation in dotcom too. But it shows that genuine end user demand is more limited than people think.
The numbers are being skewed and manipulated to mislead people into thinking new extensions are getting a warm reception (Hello Mr Negari ). Of course the raw numbers are not telling the whole story.
New extensions should be mainstream by now if the figures were really truthful and meaningful.

Something I have often noticed over the years, is that newcomers to the industry know they missed boat, but they are hoping that the dotcom boom of the 90s will repeat somehow. Every time a new extension was released in the past, there were domainers to hail it as the next big thing. IDNs at some point were touted as the 'new wave'.
.mobi was the 'new' Internet, the mobile Internet that would bury the desktop
etc

End users are less gullible than domainers on the whole.

 

[joro001]

.com losing mass regs is no suprise, people have been dropping speculative Chinese junk in bulk and yes unfortunately I am one of them. Just myself alone have just dropped close to $10k worth of 5l.coms regd from last year and we haven't even started with the Chinese investors who regd millions of $ worth of .com junk.

Verisign announced they were expecting this to happen a long time ago. We can expect this to continue for a while yet. As mentioned above new GTLD's in many extensions are not immune to this, there will be mass drops there too from the Chinese.

 

[Bram C.]

registrations, renewal... ?


But New.Life is unique, only one! This is the future of the Internet!

New.Life is as unique as NewLife.com. New.life can only be registered in the .life extension and NewLife.com can only be registered in the .com extension.

The idea that one is more unique than the other is ludicrous. All domain names are unique.

But I can guarantee you that most people will remember NewLife.com more easy than New.life simply because most people don't even realize .life is an extension. So when you say "my website is new.life" they will probably end up on newlife.com or new.life.com. But not on your actual website.

 

[ambrose.xu]

arguement is meanless, i am just a domainer, and i sold some new gtlds domainnames and earned some money these years , one or two for end user :

a. kuai.live (around $500)
b. [brand].cloud (around $2200)-- can be found in namebios
c. [one PinYin].vip in China (around $3500) --
d. some NNN.live (around $500)
......

my profit is more than $7000 this year,
if i wanted,i would sold more .online and earn more money, some end users and veteran domainers accept new G, why r u wasting time on arguement.
i don't want to place more comments, earning money is the most important.

if u don't have [key word].com or cc tlds or good meaning .com domains, just stop registering rubbish .com , new G is your better choice .

 

[Kate]

So now you are going to say that they spent money on their own TLDs just for fun?

Those leading companies already have the .com usually, they are not taking any chance.

Now, just facts, not wishful thinking:

Fact: Even Barclays or Canon have not completely migrated to their own extension. Yet they are hailed as success stories but there are better examples.

Fact: the majority of TLD applicants have not moved to their own extension. What's holding them up ?

Fact: Two dozens TLDs (corpTLDs) have already been retired: List of retired new extensions
Plus, those that didn't make it to the delegation phase (but the applicants nonetheless lost the application fee). Example: .aquitaine. Clearly, companies are spending money for nothing. Have you noticed how the spin doctors of new extensions always report on the positive news (that is, not often and it's regurgitated stuff), but the failures are conveniently swept under the rug.

Fact: historically new extensions have never done well.

Fact: even support from industry heavyweight is no guarantee of success.

I still remember the discussions from ten years ago at NP, where they naysayers predicting the demise of .mobi were depicted as fools and ignorants. How dare we question the sanity of those big conglomerates, and the bright people leading their steering boards. As if domainers knew better than those companies, how arrogant !
How could a TLD fail when it has the backing of Google, Nokia, Microsoft and is embraced by prominent end users like BofA etc. Right ?
Plenty of projects will never see the light and die or fail on the market, It's just part of business.

What makes you think that even the most successful companies do not waste money, or take wrong bets sometimes ?
Just because you throw a lot of money at something, doesn't mean it will work.

 

[JB Lions]

According to the data and this simple chart:

http://www.registrarstats.com/TLDDomainCounts.aspx

Is there a BIG drop? Coming soon?

Looks like the line continues to go up according to that chart. I imagine it'll be even better in the future once people smarten up, adjust and start rolling with the king. Could be a big drop in new gtlds next Summer, realization setting in etc. Might be a temp hit on .com as well, remember people getting caught up in all that Chinese this and that and buying all kinds of crap, weird combos etc.*** That drop is coming as well. But after that, back to the normal upward trend.

*** as an example, those 5Ls. See them on sale here at NP in bulk for .50 cents each. All that is going to drop.

 

[thedotsol]

If I'll going to start the business using my sex.life domain... I know only one competitor which looks better for me - sex.com, not "sexlife.com".

Why is sex .life better than sexlife .com? Because later option has a dot and three letters more?

Remember, it is not what you think or want, it is what end users are buying.

 

[New.Life]

Why is sex .life better than sexlife .com? Because later option has a dot and three letters more?

Remember, it is not what you think or want, it is what end users are buying.

I AM END USER! And I chose www.sex.life

 

[dordomai]

To get the answer, just simply compare exact match "abc.com" and "abc.life" (!)
"abc.com" may cost about $10,000,000 or more... or it may be priceless!
"abc.life" cost just about $36 (!!!)
So for my compamy I prefer to buy "abc.life" for sure! It's common sense!
I don't have $10M, or better say - I don't want to pay this money.

Either you pay $10 million or you pay $36?

No company with a serious marketing budget would only pay $36 for a domain. They would acquire a good .com on the aftermarket for much less than 6 figures, instead of hand-registering crap.

You can get decent coms for less than 5 figures if you put in some work. That is what most startups do BTW.

Most startups buy a .com instead of handregging a nGTLD. Look at what end-users are buying.

Sometimes startups start with an URL hack or on an other extension (example instagr.am)

Once they grow they acquire the matching .com and move the website there. The same will happen with a startup on a nGTLD. The majority of successful startups that don't choose a .com will sooner or later upgrade to it.

Agree.
There are very few able/willing to pay millions compared to millions willing to pay a decent premium for something new, exciting,relevant.

Real world examples:

Top 17 startups from 2016.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/top-17-startups-launched-in-2016-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

.COM

Website: https://starry.com
Website: https://www.juicero.com
Website: http://www.cheddar.com - Why didn't they go with cheddar.food?
Website: http://www.grailbio.com - Why not grail.bio?
Website: https://www.gojuno.com - Why not juno.online?
Website: http://www.simplehabitapp.com - Simplehabit.app?
Website: https://www.comparably.com
Website: http://flyzipline.com
Website: https://www.nanit.com
Website: https://www.truebill.com
Website: https://winnielabs.com
Website: http://ritual.com - Ritual.xyz?
Website: https://www.lolatravel.com - Lola.Travel?
Website: https://pearlauto.com - Pearl.Auto ?
Website: https://www.knuedge.com

ccTLD:

Website: http://ot.to
Website: https://recharge.co

nGTLD:

None.

Startups simply don't like nGTLDs and there is probably a good reason for it. It's not that they aren't aware of them. They avoid them intentionally.