.tv TV.com offers to .TV owners results

[TLDnetworks]

Got an unsolicited offer from a .TV owner about my tv.com of the same name. Nothing big, settled at $300 for a name I was going to drop this year anyway. So I decided to email the .TV owners of 25 other TV.com names I really have no use for. Professional tone and clear contact info so they would see that it was not a scam email. Here are the results;

1 offered at $50 - flat out declined no interest
2 offered at $75 - flat out declined no interest
1 offered at $100 - "I would never buy that! ****.TV is Far better" (four letter word highly relevant)
1 offered at $75 - declined but offered $30 (rejected)
1 offered at $75 - accepted and has not followed through with payment
1 offered at $100 - accepted & pushed
18 offered between $75 - $100 - No response

The lack of response especially at very reasonable prices surprises and shocks me. I would never build out a serious site/buisness without the .com version just to ensure brand integrity and avoid traffic leak. Believe all you want in "Dot TV" or dot whatever - Americans default to Dot Com....

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[GoneWalkabout]

Totally agree about the default to .com mindset.

I recently had a meeting where the guy was interested more in the TV.com 'brand' than that of the .TV - but even he realised he needed both.

Thing is - the guy was a player - and in his small world the TV.com was what mattered to him.

We all love .TV here - but we must never forget it is just a delivery service. Whether a person's internet Tv is delivered via a name that ends .Tv or TV.com or channel.com or anything similar - the thing they understand is that the internet Tv channel itself is what matters most.

Come on - who would have paid more than reg fee for Twitter.TV?

There are MULTIPLE brands for the delivery of internet TV

 

[StoneRoses]

Completely disagree about the whole default to dot com thing, this maybe the case in America, but the rest of the world ,particulary Europe knows about other extensions and can quite easily distinguish between them without defaulting back to dot com imo

I would not buy any of the tv.com names for my .tv names and will quite happily develop my .tv sites without fear of people going to the tv.com or the dot com.

Justin.tv doesn't need justintv.com anymore than liverpoolfc.tv needs liverpoolfctv.com or renault.tv needs renaulttv.com.

Just my opinon

 

[freedom30]

...Justin.tv doesn't need justintv.com anymore than liverpoolfc.tv needs liverpoolfctv.com or renault.tv needs renaulttv.com.

Just my opinon

...and a valid opinion at that!

 

[GoneWalkabout]

It's not a question of whether Justin.TV can live with or without TV.com. I think we all know they can exist perfectly well as they are.

The fact remains that others who are purely TV.com, such as MCFCTV.com, or KentTV.com are similarly not really desparate to own MCFC.tv or Kent.tv (although it would be nice). I imagine they are very content - just as others who have just .TV are in their own worlds.

It is not a question of .TV VERSUS .com - but what makes the best mix or brand for each particular project.

And I know of one certainty. Those who are serious about a project tend to buy up all the variants they can before they launch.

Which takes us back to the original question posed by TLDNetworks 'Do Americans default to .TV or not?' If they do - then any business would be foolish to ignore that fact.

 

[freedom30]

...It is not a question of .TV VERSUS .com - but what makes the best mix or brand for each particular project...

Touche, and point well taken as well. It all boils down to the bottom line. Input appreciated, Jimbo.

 

[TLDnetworks]

...this maybe the case in America,...

Isn't that exactly what I said? The US market is one of, if not the largest markets on-line, so if you are US based and are targeting a US market wouldn't you want to ensure your business is found by that market?

I would not buy any of the tv.com names for my .tv names and will quite happily develop my .tv sites without fear of people going to the tv.com or the dot com.

We'll agree to disagree then. I believe ignoring it is ignorant.

Justin.tv doesn't need justintv.com

Again, may not NEED it but IMO a mistake to ignore the lost opportunity and traffic.

anymore than liverpoolfc.tv needs liverpoolfctv.com or renault.tv needs renaulttv.com.

Two well established European companies/organizations based in a non-American Market, so you're right, probly not an issue since as you've pointed out that that market is used to ccTLD's.

 

[garptrader]

The lack of response is probably a combination of apathetic interest in spending beyond reg fee for any domain you don't need and the fact that many of the registrants were likely domainers who rarely pay serious money for a non-premium domain. Check out the number of domains the registrants hold and if the number is greater than 25, they are likely domainers.

 

[mckennaronnie]

The lack of response especially at very reasonable prices surprises and shocks me. I would never build out a serious site/buisness without the .com version just to ensure brand integrity and avoid traffic leak. Believe all you want in "Dot TV" or dot whatever - Americans default to Dot Com....

Thoughts? Comments?

Were the .TV versions developed?

1st thing i would say is that it is probably best to spend $30 on grabbing the TV.com if your doing a major .TV development, very little risk to let you see if there is any leakage & then you can decide if its worth renewing it in year 2.

My own personal experience / opinion is that the stories about massive traffic leak from .TV to TV.com is vastly exaggerated but Remember that is just MY experience so don't shoot me for it as i know NP'ers LOVE the leakage talk.
I bought the TV.com of a a developed .TV i own that gets about 5,000 unique's a month, traffic leaking to TV.com wasn't even a handful a month so in year 2 it got dropped and i spent the $30 on Jack Daniels which worked better for business.

One thing i should add that my site is UK based so i wont dare try say anything about leakage to .com in the states as it's not my area & i know no matter what you say, .com always comes out on top when talking to anyone in the US no matter how strong their argument is.

In Europe we definitely do not default to .com like i hear domainers mention all the time on forums, the whole idea of users typing in 'xxxxtv.com or xxxx.com when they hear about a site calledxxxxxx.TV is crazy to me and always will be but over & over domainers have said that has/will be the case.

I am not too surprised at all that the .TV owners didn't want the TV.com's in most cases as rightly or wrongly most don't value TV.com too well unless the keyword goes perfect with 'TV' (such as SportsTV.com, NewsTV.com, LiveTV.com)

That is how i see it from my end.

Goodnight,
Ronnie

 

[gr8trfoo]

Believe all you want in "Dot TV" or dot whatever - Americans default to Dot Com....

Do you have stats to back that up or is simply an opinion (and therefore a waste of time arguing about). It seems you've already demonstrated your real opinion of .com by indicating your intention to sell off potentially valuable brands for pennies.

My own personal experience / opinion is that the stories about massive traffic leak from .TV to TV.com is vastly exaggerated but Remember that is just MY experience so don't shoot me for it as i know NP'ers LOVE the leakage talk.
I bought the TV.com of a a developed .TV i own that gets about 5,000 unique's a month, traffic leaking to TV.com wasn't even a handful a month so in year 2 it got dropped and i spent the $30 on Jack Daniels which worked better for business.

I have a good tv.com of a developed .tv. The .tv has been up for years and I've held the tv.com since about 2001. The .tv gets about 30k uniques a month according to quant. I get about 300. 290 of those I'm sure eventually find the .tv site and probably dont come back to visit my landing page very often.

I suppose I should compare the country profile of my traffic to the profile of the .tv, that might reveal some interesting info about what countries users are more/less attentive.

Leakage exists but its better to think of it in terms of heat rather than water. "Smart heat" at that since most users are not quite as dumb as many would have them be. They will find there way to what they were looking for even if they get diverted long enough for the odd ppc click or 2.


btw - "Jack Daniels"? I figured you for a highland singlemalt man. lol.

 

[StoneRoses]

Isn't that exactly what I said? The US market is one of, if not the largest markets on-line, so if you are US based and are targeting a US market wouldn't you want to ensure your business is found by that market? .

Yes of course the US market is one the the biggest, but i believe Americans are more than capable of distinguishing .tv from dot com, so imo the argument just does not stack up.

We'll agree to disagree then. I believe ignoring it is ignorant..

I am not ignoring anything, i have discussed and looked into this several times and i just think this whole leakage thing to dot com is absolute nonsense and is blown widly out of proportion by certain people,if you feel that makes me ignorant then so be it.[/QUOTE]

Again, may not NEED it but IMO a mistake to ignore the lost opportunity and traffic..

See my last post, the whole traffic leak thing is imo a myth.

Two well established European companies/organizations based in a non-American Market, so you're right, probly not an issue since as you've pointed out that that market is used to ccTLD's.

Two well established European companies but by no means is their market restricted to Europe, their market and appeal is global, Liverpool FC is even owned by 2 Americans , why did Liverpool not choose Liverpoolfc.co.uk? if they are a European non American market?,or Liverpoolfc.com for their global market,they obviously felt that .tv would not harm any global appeal and as such used it for their site,..[/QUOTE]

It's obvious from this and many other discussions on here and elsewhere that SOME American domainers and most Europeans do not agree on this issue,like Ronnie said, the whole "i only know dot com ,so i default to that" argument just doesn't add up for many of us.
You can argue about it all day long, but the fact is more and more .tv only sites are popping up worldwide every day,and amazing amount infact, and despite some peoples "certainty" about grabbing every version if you are serious it seems people like, wordpress.tv(USA),renualt.tv(France),five.tv(UK),tnt.tv(USA) and many many more do not feel the same way, and with all due respect to yourself, these guys actions means more to me than your opinions based on a few tv.com names that wouldn't sell for a couple of bucks to the .tv owners
No offence is meant by that ,truly it isn't, thats just how i see it.

Excellent post btw Finster,

 

[GoneWalkabout]

It appears that the 'gangspeak' is back - just pick your side - are you .com or .TV?

Crazy!

I have around 80 solid state .TVs that in anyone's books are worthy of serious merit.

I have around 80 solid state TV.com's of a similar value and prestige.

I have NO vested interest in either over the other.

But I do realise that if you ignore what others are doing, thinking, saying, and acting upon - then you do so at your business peril.

This is not about leakage, it is about securing a brand.

Let's not forget the whole of the .TV world is based on a less than solid agreement (timewise) between a US company and the government of a small Pacific country that has serious environmental problems. Then add to the mix the problems of ridiculously high premiums, high 'standard' prices, a hatred of the brand by the biggest domain players in the world (like GoDaddy), and very few real developers in comparison to other TLDs - and you can see that the arrival of .TV will not be as immediate as many want it to be.

TV.com also has major issues as a standalone - it is also based on the assumption that the .com alone, or .co.uk, or de, or whatever, will not transform into a televisual medium. Let's not forget that with each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

AnD then - when you think all is well and you know the answer, you can guarantee that someone will create a method that negates the need for any TLD whatsoever, with everything going through a closed 'google' 'apple' or 'facebook' enclosed internet world.

Oh, and there's a fr^ckin depression running through the world that has hammered the cr^p out of most people's savings, employment and dreams!

TLDnetworks - Thanks for sharing the information about the TV.com experience. Many here wouldn't have been so forthright so you are to be commended for passing on 'facts' - even though they might not be what some of us want to hear. I hope that should you do it again you will still feel happy to share your results.

Happy Easter one and all.

 

[mckennaronnie]

I have a good tv.com of a developed .tv. The .tv has been up for years and I've held the tv.com since about 2001. The .tv gets about 30k uniques a month according to quant. I get about 300. 290 of those I'm sure eventually find the .tv site and probably dont come back to visit my landing page very often.

I suppose I should compare the country profile of my traffic to the profile of the .tv, that might reveal some interesting info about what countries users are more/less attentive.

Leakage exists but its better to think of it in terms of heat rather than water. "Smart heat" at that since most users are not quite as dumb as many would have them be. They will find there way to what they were looking for even if they get diverted long enough for the odd ppc click or 2.


btw - "Jack Daniels"? I figured you for a highland singlemalt man. lol.

Fin I'm a drinker of JD, Single Malt, cheap Vodka, or anything else which is strong & i don't need to drink too much to get merry. Typically JD, Bourbon or Scotch Whiskey but i always end up back with JD.

Looks like we have a similar experience when owning a tv.com and looking at the always popular 'leakage' issue with less than 1% of the traffic leaking through (in my case it was nearer to 0.5% or lower i would say though)

If this thread is about buying Tv.com (and any other extensions) when planning a major .TV development then i would say it's worth the $30 or so til you see how it performs, no arguments at all there.

I personally don't like Tv.com too much but i in no way see any '.TV versus Tv.com fight'
Each will become popular or fade away depending on Endusers using them, ones progress wont mean the other one will fail though.

Going back to the original post in this thread:

Got an unsolicited offer from a .TV owner about my tv.com of the same name. Nothing big, settled at $300 for a name I was going to drop this year anyway. So I decided to email the .TV owners of 25 other TV.com names I really have no use for. Professional tone and clear contact info so they would see that it was not a scam email. Here are the results;

1 offered at $50 - flat out declined no interest
2 offered at $75 - flat out declined no interest
1 offered at $100 - "I would never buy that! ****.TV is Far better" (four letter word highly relevant)
1 offered at $75 - declined but offered $30 (rejected)
1 offered at $75 - accepted and has not followed through with payment
1 offered at $100 - accepted & pushed
18 offered between $75 - $100 - No response

The lack of response especially at very reasonable prices surprises and shocks me. I would never build out a serious site/business without the .com version just to ensure brand integrity and avoid traffic leak. Believe all you want in "Dot TV" or dot whatever - Americans default to Dot Com....

Thoughts? Comments?

Were the .TV versions developed sites?
If not then i would fully expect this sort of result as domainers are not interested in 'protecting the brand' or anything like that, they only bought .tv for quick flips.

And were the .tv's really top notch domains / keywords?
If not then in most cases the .TV would be struggling to sell right now as there is a BIG gap between the average .tv's aftermarket value and the high class .tv's value SO if the owner cannot sell their .tv then i wouldn't expect them to spend another $30 on a Tv.com to go with it. IMHO
In these tough times where domainers are hardly spending money anywhere then it comes as no shock that only one out of 25 would buy a domain just for protecting.

IF the .TV's were high quality or already developed .Tv sites then i would of expected some of the owners to take you up on the offer of the tv.com for $30+ as it could make sense & be at very little financial risk.
THOUGH i have not seen too many developers who do this so far so possibly they are not too worried about leakage or brand protecting for this issue (though i have never asked any big time developer this so cant confirm why they dont buy tv.com's regular when developing .tv's)

I'm off to work on my .tv now,
Ronnie

 

[NostraDomainus]

I've been dealing with .TV for 5-6 yrs now and in the end, I still find they are mostly a back-up to xxxxxTV.com

In my experience, .TV is more vanity and .com is more commercial, as commented on in the first post with the business responses.

Until tv-internet convergence is ubiqutious, I still only see .TV as growing in value moderately as it has for years now, at best, with this rescession not helping. Stressed .com sales are not motivating buyers to go to .TV they way they did when the .com equivalent was taken and for sale at peek prices.

The possiblity of .vid .television .video .videos .stream .streaming etc. with the introduction of creating .whateveryouwant soon, will further slice-up the online TV/video media market (that is, alot more supply compared to current and future demand trends), whereby .TV could lose value and identity in the broader landscape.

For example, I have 4-Sale here @ NP FreeVideos.TV
http://www.namepros.com/domains-for-sale-fixed-price/574288-freevideos-info-tv-12-related-names.html
Is it Worth it? You tell me

Previously, I sold LiveS*x.TV for $3500 and Videoclip.TV for $1000

Great Discussion Thread! ...and don't get me wrong, I like .TV alot. Can't wait to get time to develop my keepers.

Best of Luck & Success in All Your Endeavours!

 

[gr8trfoo]

The possiblity of .vid .television .video .videos .stream .streaming etc. with the introduction of creating .whateveryouwant soon, will further slice-up the online TV/video media market (that is, alot more supply compared to current and future demand trends), whereby .TV could lose value and identity in the broader landscape.
[/I]

There's no telling how many of these will actually become tlds and if any do whether they'll amount to anything more than a blip. Of course potential dilution is not limited to just .tv but to all tld's across the board - including the might .com

Until tv-internet convergence is ubiqutious, I still only see .TV as growing in value moderately as it has for years now, at best, with this rescession not helping. Stressed .com sales are not motivating buyers to go to .TV they way they did when the .com equivalent was taken and for sale at peek prices.
[/I]

I belive that day is fast approaching. I dont think anyone has to look real hard to see its true. I heard even the nytimes has video on their site now.

I predict 2010 will be the year .tv really comes into its own and the .tv bubble will start around 2011-2012. Thats providing the global recession turns around near the begining of 2010 or sooner.

Fin I'm a drinker of JD, Single Malt, cheap Vodka, or anything else which is strong & i don't need to drink too much to get merry. Typically JD, Bourbon or Scotch Whiskey but i always end up back with JD.

Let no one say you are not a man of taste! I'm no stranger myself to Mr Daniels' Tennessee Sour Mash. Good stuff!! However these days I have acquired a certain fondness for the spirits of Islay. The more peat the more better!

One day I'll simply have to develop malts . tv.

 

[mckennaronnie]

Let no one say you are not a man of taste! I'm no stranger myself to Mr Daniels' Tennessee Sour Mash. Good stuff!! However these days I have acquired a certain fondness for the spirits of Islay. The more peat the more better!

One day I'll simply have to develop malts . tv.

SingleMalt.tv is THE website for you now your getting a taste for the Scottish stuff.
A few years ago i used to really like some of the whiskies from Scottish Islands like Islay, after drinking my way through far too many ££'s worth of decent Wikskies then i thought it was time to get reasonable and go onto JD & Coke so i get get merry without the massive bar bill.
Whiskey & a dash of water is how all the old whiskey drinkers round here suggest it should be drank though it's an acquired taste.

 

[jeffoverman]

you and fin can drink me under the table, lol.. i dont touch the hard stuff and hardly drink anymore... perks of getting older i guess... i miss the crazy youthful, no responsible days in college, lol :hehe:

cheers,

j

SingleMalt.tv is THE website for you now your getting a taste for the Scottish stuff.
A few years ago i used to really like some of the whiskies from Scottish Islands like Islay, after drinking my way through far too many ££'s worth of decent Wikskies then i thought it was time to get reasonable and go onto JD & Coke so i get get merry without the massive bar bill.
Whiskey & a dash of water is how all the old whiskey drinkers round here suggest it should be drank though it's an acquired taste.