.tv .tv Myths, Hurdles, Showstoppers, Catalysts and Game Changers

[tj1897]

Time to attempt my 1st thread methinks.

I’ve voiced a very rosy .tv outlook in a couple of separate threads here, namely that .tv has, in light of new developments in internet / tv convergence:

1) the potential to break from the pack “of other than .com extensions” .

2) on gaining critical mindshare amongst end users, an opportunity to establish itself as the defacto brand for tvweb ( outperforming tv.com )

3) an opportunity to hardwire itself into the common psyche (much like .com has today for web) before any number of new extensions can encroach its goto brand credentials for webtv .

Is this an irrationally exuberant outlook? If you think so it would be great to hear of the hurdles and the pitfalls you see for the extension. Equally it would be good to hear from fellow believers

It would be useful then in getting a better handle on the lay of the .tv land, to shoot off the prevailing myths, hurdles , showstoppers , catalysts and gamechangers for the extension

Starting off, I see some of these as :

A) Myths: the island of tuvalu is sinking ( myth 3 from jimbo’s fantastic thread :tu: from last year for myths http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/610498-myths-about-tv-whats-actually-true.html)

B)Hurdles: hybrid text / video content sites using the extension ( undermines the brand equity of the ‘tv’ moniker )

c)Showstoppers: 2016 renewal uncertainty

d)Catalysts : google treating it like a generic as opposed to a cltld

e)Game changers : google tv as opposed to yahoo connected tv which doesn’t offer full browsing of the web on tv

Pls shoot off under any or all categories
As the newbie I look forward to reading them all :gl: ... if we get a few entries going i'll look at compiling them into a table of some kind ( not sure how would do that in a thread though)

tj

 

[snoop]

Is this an irrationally exuberant outlook?

Yes, the extension has been around for 14 years with lots of speculation in it for at least 10, I don't see why there would be fundamental changes now. The extensions for video on the web are mainly .com and popular country codes, youtube, facebook etc. Video does not need its own extension just like mobile sites don't need .mobi. At the end of the day .tv is niche, an alt extension for tv shows, tv networks and video sites.

A) Myths: the island of tuvalu is sinking ( myth 3 from jimbo’s fantastic thread :tu: from last year for myths http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/610498-myths-about-tv-whats-actually-true.html)

Since when it that a myth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVwc45Nnng

d)Catalysts : google treating it like a generic as opposed to a cltld

I think what people miss is that that doesn't mean they rank it well. There is no reason why Google would treat it as a cctld though, that wouldn't make for a good user experience.

 

[tj1897]

Technically i think the sinking and sea level semantics were nicely addressed in the jimbo thread.


on 14 years my particular stance is : i dont see what .tv had going for it before the (e) gamechanger...

Thanks for the shots from the hip

Got me thinking though so looked up a precendent where a country has disappeared and the impact on its extension :
"And don't worry about your domain name extension disappearing with the island, the Soviet Union has been gone for nearly twenty years and you can still register its country code extension, dot-su."

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/domain-...r-business-website-2067899.html#ixzz16M8gtTFx

 

[snoop]

on 14 years my particular stance is : i dont see what .tv had going for it before the (e) gamechanger...

Don't really see how google tv is going to do much for .tv. I'd compare to to the mobile internet and .mobi. No dedicated domain or "new" extension is needed.

Got me thinking though so looked up a precendent where a country has disappeared and the impact on its extension :
"And don't worry about your domain name extension disappearing with the island, the Soviet Union has been gone for nearly twenty years and you can still register its country code extension, dot-su."

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/domain-...r-business-website-2067899.html#ixzz16M8gtTFx

The extension isn't going to disappear but it is on the cards for the country.

 

[tj1897]

You could certainly argue that a new extension is not needed - but you can also argue that its more pragmatic to have one for webtv startups:

1)in the case of .com so many quality domains have been taken up that whats left to the tv startup is not very appealing – they have to cannabalise their development budgets to spend through the nose on a quality name therefore impeding the state of the art in meeting more sophisticated or evolving end user requirements.

2) webtv startups will fulfill a distinct new requirement – that of innovating a 10 foot experience. So .com for watching video on your notebook / pc and .tv for watching video within a tv experience ( complete with universal remote interaction ) on a large tv screen in a living room.

So having an alternative extension could be used to underscore the fact that these sites serve a new requirement brought about technological advancements ( that nots to say there will be some unwritten rule that you cant have non 10 foot experience sites using a .tv extension! - goes back to my first (b)
"B)Hurdles: hybrid text / video content sites using the extension ( undermines the brand equity of the ‘tv’ moniker )"

So far only flesh wounds snoop ..keep shooting 1 tv optimist still standing ( all the while hoping the the .tv big guns will come ablazing ... )

tj

 

[snoop]

1)in the case of .com so many quality domains have been taken up that whats left to the tv startup is not very appealing – they have to cannabalise their development budgets to spend through the nose on a quality name therefore impeding the state of the art in meeting more sophisticated or evolving end user requirements.

So many times in the past this has proven to be a wrong assumptions by domainers. Most new startups will choose a low quality .com over a better alt extension. Just take a look at techcrunch and see what they are using. Most people don't see a benefit in widgets.tv over bluewidgets.com.

2) webtv startups will fulfill a distinct new requirement – that of innovating a 10 foot experience. So .com for watching video on your notebook / pc and .tv for watching video within a tv experience ( complete with universal remote interaction ) on a large tv screen in a living room.So having an alternative extension could......

will...could...should...would.

What are these startups actually using? I do not think it is mainly .tv.

 

[tj1897]

Its all speculation but when there is a new need ( necessity) a business opportunity normally follows ( invention ) .. i think the 10 foot experience sites will meet the needs of people wanting the expensive tv experience from the low cost web ....and the .tv extension is perfectly positioned to slot right into this *new* need.

tj

 

[garptrader]

My personal .TV view is the appeal of acquiring a nice keyword domain at a very reasonable price when the comparable .COM would often cost at least five figures. On the other hand .TV domains do appear to be harder to rank in the first 6-12 months than a .COM or .Net and the resale market for the extension is not nearly as robust. See the weekly DNJ sales reports and you will see myriad examples of so-so keyword .COM domains selling for four to even five figures. The rare .TV which sells for four figures is normally a quality keyword with considerable search volume. I have noticed adoption of the extension but given the .TV usage tends to be reg fee domains, I wonder whether the .TV adoption is more about avoiding the domain aftermarket than the preference for .TV as a means of brand promotion.

 

[tj1897]

so under
d)Catalysts
we can chalk up aftermarket deterrence favouring .tv

thats another one for the pro camp ..

roll up roll up with your (a) , (b) and (c) potshots!

 

[snoop]

Its all speculation but when there is a new need ( necessity) a business opportunity normally follows ( invention ) .. i think the 10 foot experience sites will meet the needs of people wanting the expensive tv experience from the low cost web ....and the .tv extension is perfectly positioned to slot right into this *new* need.

tj

Using a .tv domain doesn't full fill any particular "need" though. Any other extension does the same thing, including extensions business use right now.

Once again it is the same argument that we heard with .mobi, at the end of the day though using auto detection or a sub domain makes a lot more sense than trying to promote multiple domains in the same market.

 

[tj1897]

It may not right now be a need but could become one - envision viewing on the box, you really dont want to scroll through thousands of websites on your tv web browser so parameters to filter sites according to whether they are built for big screen display with its own particular style guide are going to become more important in the fidelity of search - i'm hoping that .tv has some part to play in that .... granted this one is sheer wishful speculation

but wouldnt that make a great (d) catalyst !

 

[snoop]

It may not right now be a need but could become one

In the world of domains "could" rarely happens.

envision viewing on the box, you really dont want to scroll through thousands of websites on your tv web browser so parameters to filter sites according to whether they are built for big screen display with its own particular style guide are going to become more important in the fidelity of search - i'm hoping that .tv has some part to play in that .... granted this one is sheer wishful speculation

but wouldnt that make a great (c) catalyst !

Doesn't make much sense to filter based on domain from that point of view because the tld is unrestricted and you'd miss most of the world content, like video from youtube, facebook etc.

It is a bit like the much speculated .mobi button....filtering based on having a .tv at the end would only ever benefit domainers, not users, which is why it would make no commercial sense.

 

[tj1897]

In the world of business ( end users and those that serve their requirements) could is quite often good enought to speculate and advance the state of the art which can lead to a self fulfilling virtous circle scenerio and bingo could happens.

Some of the premium content that potential tv channels ( the ones investing in making the 10 foot experience real ) may want to broadcast on the net could well be subscription / pay per view fare unlikley to be found on the free user generated web .

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Snoops been sniping away but no kill shots … net net after the first volley from the nay sayers as I see it is :

A Myths: 1) the island of tuvalu is sinking : could be immaterial as extensions can live on

B)Hurdles:
1)hybrid text / video content sites using the extension ( undermines the brand equity of the ‘tv’ moniker )
2) I’ll add another … is there a possibility .vid extension or .video extension will dilute .tv ?

c)Showstoppers:
1)2016 renewal uncertainty

d)Catalysts :
1)google treating it like a generic as opposed to a cltld
2)aversion to aftermarket is pushing .tv registrations

e)Game changers :1) google tv as opposed to yahoo connected tv which doesn’t offer full browsing of the web on tv
net net speculation - but speculation and necessity are powerful forces

tj

 

[ThreeD]

Let me just shoot in this little nugget for you snoop. Even if .TV isn't needed, why do you think more and more large corporations move their video portals to .TV?

I'll give you the key word here - Brandability!

Not only does it sound better with .TV (compared to .com or *tv.com), not only does it make more sense (for video content) but it also tells the visitors what they can expect when they visit a .TV site.

A .com address is very unpredictable in terms of content, a .TV isn't. More and more corporations realize these factors now and move their online video ventures to .TV land. Want me to give you another example? Ever been to TechCrunch.TV?

 

[eyedomainous]

There is nothing distinctive about the 'dot', every extension has one. 'TV' in a domain name is the distinction that gives "Brandability".

TechcrunchTV.com loads the same page as Techcrunch.TV - so its a "6 in one, half-a-dozen in the other" situation. However, there are (brandable) exceptions.

Also, branding is primarily a product of a "Name", not its extension. McDonalds is the brand, not McDonalds, Inc..

"TV Guide" is the brand. "TV Guide Online Holdings LLC", and TVGUIDE.com, are classifications, or 'extensions' of the brand name.

Yes, you can "brand" a classification, like "News Corp.", or ".TV" aka "dotTV", but you really gotta work at it. And, IMO, its not a smart move -as you have little control over legal classifications, and the rules change from country to country.

Online, the threat of new extensions, the competitive rise of other extensions, like .VU (see Vid.VU), coupled with the vagaries of ccTLD contracts and structural namespace changes -like the present "http://" and "www" phase-out, along with instant search results, voice and motion controls, etc., will likely soon make a domains' extension virtually mute.

All one need do now is type "TV" into goog and
the number one online "TV brand" comes up: TV Guide(.com), TV.com is at the bottom of page as an alternative search result. Nowhere on page one is there a .TV.

Now, I like .TV, I own and operate multiple .TV sites... but this sub-forum is perhaps the only place online where dotTV is the best TV Brand in domain names.

The ultimate domain name TV brand, by far, is AsSeenOnTV.com -which sold for $5 Million in 2000. (This may well be more than all the aftermarket .TV domain name sales in the last decade put together).​

Let me just shoot in this little nugget for you snoop. Even if .TV isn't needed, why do you think more and more large corporations move their video portals to .TV?

I'll give you the key word here - Brandability!

Not only does it sound better with .TV (compared to .com or *tv.com), not only does it make more sense (for video content) but it also tells the visitors what they can expect when they visit a .TV site.

A .com address is very unpredictable in terms of content, a .TV isn't. More and more corporations realize these factors now and move their online video ventures to .TV land. Want me to give you another example? Ever been to TechCrunch.TV?

 

[tj1897]

Just taken 3 hits under (b) hurdles ..thanks for those eyedomainus and the branding a tv entity insight.

B)Hurdles:
1)hybrid text / video content sites using the extension ( undermines the brand equity of the ‘tv’ moniker )
2) I’ll add another … is there a possibility .vid extension or .video extension will dilute .tv ?
3)Online, the threat of new extensions, the competitive rise of other extensions, like .VU (see Vid.VU),
4)TV' in a domain name is the distinction that gives "Brandability" not the .tv extension
5) "ccTLD contracts and structural namespace changes -like the present "http://" and "www" phase-out, along with instant search results, voice and motion controls, etc., will likely soon make a domains' extension virtually mute."
( this is also a catalyst IF business.com and business.tv are brought up equally on a voice search of ‘business” if the extension becomes a moot point)


No new showstoppers so far :tu:

For the procamp the big guns from jimbo have fired a 21 gun salute blazing over on a new front http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/689022-the-reasons-for-tvs-success.html#post3990733

 

[ThreeD]

is there a possibility .vid extension or .video extension will dilute .tv ?

Online, the threat of new extensions, the competitive rise of other extensions, like .VU (see Vid.VU),

Lets taken an example - the word entertainment. What do you think people on a global scale are most likely to recognize and associate with visual entertainment?

Entertainment.TV
Entertainment.VIDEO
Entertainment.VU
Entertainment.VID

I know where I'd put my money!

 

[snoop]

Let me just shoot in this little nugget for you snoop. Even if .TV isn't needed, why do you think more and more large corporations move their video portals to .TV?

I'll give you the key word here - Brandability!

Talk about a loaded question. Just because a company might start a .tv site doesn't mean "more and more large corporations move their video portals to .TV", I haven't seen any stats to suggest the market share of .tv is growing, and resale prices have gone nowhere over a decade.

Not only does it sound better with .TV (compared to .com or *tv.com), not only does it make more sense (for video content) but it also tells the visitors what they can expect when they visit a .TV site.

It is a bit like a mother who things their baby is the prettiest.

A .com address is very unpredictable in terms of content, a .TV isn't.

Most .tv's are developed and have high quality video on them do they?

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

I know where I'd put my money!

We already knew that.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Now, I like .TV, I own and operate multiple .TV sites... but this sub-forum is perhaps the only place online where dotTV is the best TV Brand in domain names.
​

Well said.​

 

[scandiman]

c)Showstoppers: 2016 renewal uncertainty

The fact that .tv is ultimately the ccTLD for the island nation of Tuvalu and ultimately under their govt control killed the idea of using .tv for a commercial project I was helping with (previously discussed here). It's truly a showstopper for some which may be why Verisign conveniently decided to leave that detail out of their About .tv page

 

[ThreeD]

Most .tv's are developed and have high quality video on them do they?

1) No, many .TV's aren't developed but if they are, you know what you get when you visit a .TV.

I also think the "new generation" of CEO's and company leaders are far more open to video, online media and .TV than the older "offline" generation. Why? I'll let you think about that one.

just because a company might start a .tv site doesn't mean "more and more large corporations move their video portals to .TV",

They don't? What did BMW do a couple of months ago and why do you think that is? Or Adidas?

How do you know that 1 year from now other big car dealers or major sports brands won't do the same thing? I don't know anything about the future but I do know that once the snowball gets rolling, it's only going to get bigger.

There is no better end-user promotion than large corporations promoting video related content on .TV sites, that's the bottom line. Sure, it'a niche extension, but online video and motion graphics are the future, that's a BIG plus for .TV and it's only going to make it more popular.

If you know anything about marketing you know that beating your competition and brandability are key words if you want success.