Perhaps its an honest mistake. Perhaps not.
When I read this post several days ago, I didn't like the nature of the post -and said so, but I gave Vito, the dot stop, the benefit of the doubt.
I know what you mean. I hate it when people make posts with excitement. I mean, what's that all about? It should all be dour numbers and "verified" sales. Who cares about all that opinion crap on a forum
Why would anyone get excited about .TV when they like .TV? That's absurd.
Not only are there more tv.com domains, but the companies that use them are by for the "more serious networks". Exposing the tv.com "brand" to at least 100 million more people.
Personally, I think its better to pump the total number exhibiting than to focus on a subgroup and state that because there are more of them this proves they are better.
Its like saying there are more male exhibitors than female, so therefore clearly men rule!!!
That's not really a fair assessment of the post. I think that one of the REALITIES of .TV is that internationally it has been more recognized than it is in the USofA. What Vito is saying is that he can see that the .TV as an extension has grown - and in his enthusiasm, of course he is going to side with .TV. I'm not going to count 20 vs 15 or whatever because the point is that it's being used.
I could question what you mean by "more serious networks" and the relevance of that? Especially in the light of your statement later which is the changing business model - are the serious players now the same as the serious players tomorrow?
What is the count of tv.com vs .TV ? What about in Europe? What about non-US? What about tv.co.uk or tv.de? or tv.at? I'm not actually seeing an advantage to .TV at all yet…. are you?
Now, if you do say that... YOU BETTER BE RIGHT! Or you'll look like a serious sexist. Or, in this case... a delusional extensionist. LOL.
By my count there are 15 tv.com domains and 13 .tv domains on the The Cable Show Exhibitor List.
Clearly TDS is delusional. How could he be so wrong. I didn't feel the need to do a count because I understood the underlying statement.
One of the things worth considering is that 67% of UK residents associate more positively with a co.uk than a .com. A .com is considered decidedly "foreign" and I think this is more true in France, Germany etc. I'm not sold on the notion of .co as a global name as it covers the same ground with a new way but I can say that I've spoken to people who do like that .TV represents a somewhat "country agnostic" platform.
It's not American, not British, European which give is a generic edge. For online video this means that you can remain culturally independent or not - it's up to the owner. If I am an animation studio in New York - I could potentially do work all over the world. There are advantages to a .TV over TV.com. It might be better to get <something>animation.com and skip the tv altogether. I'm not sure exactly what causes someone to choose tv over video over studio over the extension .tv - but there are definitely patterns that are emerging when I look around. Not all positive for .TV but certainly not negative. It's really a question of how and what your marketing points are.
I will say that I think tv.com is decidedly an American platform. This works for the more traditional companies like A&E because this is their general market. As they branch out will they take AETV.co.uk or AE.TV etc etc or something else? Will they just stick with AETV.com?
I don't pretend to know the answers; however, I think tv.com is a more specific market than .TV. No more or less valuable right now. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to anticipate that something like .TV works better going forward as we get media crossover as that will happen at a hardware and geo-location level.
It's DEFINITELY a better branding opportunity than you may realize. Justin.TV and Youtube are FULL of people referring to themselves as Something TV. Not something DOT TV but something TV. If and when they launch a product/service/show the DOT TV is undoubtedly the best solution (not the only).
Finally.
Some shows "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" are very American audience. "Eastenders" is very Anglo. Television, Video, Online platforms are no difference. It is NOT a surprise to me to find that at a US tradeshow that a lot of tv.com are present. In the UK I would expect far more co.uk. I'm not sure how popular tv.co.uk is.
Any more confusion here in the U.S. w/a dot tv as an address - I think not.
I'm not sure that we're quite there yet, V. I can tell you that I use a .TV as my primary email address and give it out to a lot of different people - IT employees, Realtors, Security people, Lawn Service, Newspaper, Car repair.. and no one has yet had an issue. This was not true with .me
I think people still raise their eye-brows a little. It is certainly true that the completely non-internet savvy people are totally cool with .TV I find that the group that isn't ok with it are those who are part time users of the internet. They don't blindly follow instruction and they think they know everything ends in .com. Young kids don't give a screw.
You can discount all these dot tv Companies as start-ups or whatever but nonetheless, the only Companies there
did have a majority of dot tv AND tv.coms as Business Names.
Our previous arguements as to the standing of TV.com vs Dot TV were all based on opinions...(Dot TV is shorter, etc. etc.) We have never had a real factual/statistical arguement here in the U.S as to Dot TV being up there with TV.com...and because of this Cable TV TradeShow we finally do!
It's hardly statistical. What we have is a single instance where there is some truth to the rumor that .TV can work. The interesting thing is that it's OUTSIDE of domainer circles which is where these discussions normally exist.
I always have seen see TV.com as an incredible investment, and I am sure all of the Domain Pioneers have seen that too, It is just finally a relief to see that Dot TV his making its way up there in the TV/PC/Network space. Everyone will have to take notice of Dot TV because it will be in their face now here in the U.S. too!
I don't believe you when you say that about TV.com .. .lol You're .TV all the way, aren't you? I think there's a reasonable market for it. I think the prices are fairly equivalent right now in the US. A tv.com = .TV; however, I really do believe that the the .TV has a more global market and in the US will become the preference and will gain more relative value. It's just an opinion and even true it's not going to make instant billionaires. It's a niche market.
More importantly, I gained a greater awareness of the TV playing field... and an interesting perspective.
The absence of Netflix, HuluPlus, MLB.tv, U-verse, FiOS, and Walmart's VUDU shows that the Cable TV industry is also having a 'TV Turf' denial moment.
Not sure I understand that statement. Why does the absence of those companies show anything about cable tv?
Because .tv is an extension, the first TV was a .tv by default. And major, multi-million dollar initiatives to promote the extension as THE 'TV' domain predated the rise of tv.com.
The rise of tv.com speaks to the market that is. Understandably, some invested in the market that was to be don't wanna hear it... so they bury their ears in the din of their own echos in .TV land.
Rise of tv.com? I wasn't aware of this.
It shrinking because the traditional subscriber base, the older middle class generation, is shrinking. "Death & Taxes" has a way of doing that.
It has been shown over and over that people are watching more tv than before. What's changing is the distribution and the pay model. We need to make sure we don't confuse content/provider and cable service in these discussions.
Its also shrinking because, the Cable TV industry also does not want to embrace the new 'big tent' market of Pay TV.
The service/content provider relationship is FAR more complicated than this. It's not about simply adopting one model or another. Content providers want to be paid but don't want subscribers to have to pay. Providers want to deliver content and be paid - i.e. charge. This leads to "packages". But it gets way more convoluted than that… People hate commercials but want everything free...
There are a number of issues that need to be worked out. Don't underestimate things like revenue source. Hulu would be losing money if it wasn't for injection of cash/contracts from... clue.. it's not the consumer paying.
Content providers need to get paid
This is a huge issue with newspapers as well. People do NOT realize how much investigative journalism costs and how much more value it has than people making crap up on forums and twitter.
Imagine the size of the convention had they 'opened up' to Pay TV players. Imagine how much more money they would have made. Imagine how much better consumers would have been served.
The benefit / costs depends entirely on your perspective. I don't believe more money would have made yet because the working model is still so unclear. Nor do I believe that all, or even most, consumers would have been served better. I think NFL networks proved this.
But, like .TV land, its their playground. They can, and will, play in their fantasy world as long as they like.
Eventually, they will look up... like some are doing now at the tv.com numbers, and realize there's an awful lot of 'kids' watching an awful lot of TV on PC's and iPads, and Droids, and... there doing it for a lot less.
There's a lot of false economy in those numbers. The absolute reality is that you need content providers. Kids are watching a lot of dumb videos - but no one sits down for an hour in front of a phone and watches cats.
They do sit down and watch House. They even sit down and watch American Idol and X Factor.... The magical "cloud" will solve many of these issues as distribution becomes much more managed.
All imho
Bottom line is that this is a bizarre discussion and I don't have time to review what I wrote
Some people see things others don't. .co/.me/.tv or whatever. It's all interesting and healthy discussion. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is still cool.
I'm glad TDS sees great things and I'm sure he will do just fine with his investments - sometimes it takes nothing more than desire and passion to make it work. Sometimes it takes more. What I do know is that if you have less it makes it more difficult. If you don't like the .TV landscape then invest in tv.com or .co or whatever ignites you...
Blah... I had things to do and I wasted the time on this post.... *sigh*
