.tv Very important to the success of .tv....in my opinion

[Debt.tv]

GOOD PUBLICITY!

I was watching the amazing race last night and CBS wants people to go to there CBSCares.tv. It forwards to a .com page but advertising the .tv extension on a major network is going to make the general public more aware of the extension, which no matter what anybody else says, is the most important thing that is going to make or break it.


Enjoy

Eric

 

[freedom30]

...especially when I typed in CBScares.com and it forwarded to the same site!

They chose to use the .tv extension when they could have used the .com. Hmmmm,most interesting indeed!

 

[Jeff]

Very old news, as it's been widely discussed that both 'CBScares.TV' and ™ 'MLB.TV' are brand protection and just simple URL redirects; not adding anything to a very necessary developed "ecosystem"! :imho:

Regards,
Jeff

 

[MrRhee]

Very old news, as it's been widely discussed that both 'CBScares.TV' and ™ 'MLB.TV' are brand protection and just simple URL redirects; not adding anything to a very necessary developed "ecosystem"! :imho:

Regards,
Jeff

While it may be old news to YOU, Jeff, there are many new people here who may not be aware and isn't that your new mission here: to help spread awareness and adoption and spearhead the development of the .TV ecosystem?

Let's not assume that everyone here knows about CBSCares. So let's try to stay on topic here: I think it speaks volumes that they are still aggressively promoting the site over the years and I personally think the fact that they have chosen to PROMOTE the .TV URL (instead of the .com) in all their commercials is more important than you suggest or realize. That IS the brand they are building.

Since you brought up the topic of MLB.TV, I suggest you do more research into what exactly the MLB.TV service is VS the MLB.com site and you will see the MLB is offering an actual product/service online that is called: MLB.TV - sign up for the PAY service and you will see how cohesive they are with the brand-building campaign. No matter how people choose to paint it as a simple redirect as an attempt to de-value its' importance, they are mistaken and spreading DISinformation. Jeff, good luck and your further research.

.

 

[freedom30]

My previous post bears repeating as to the significance of media companies utilizing the .tv extension and some questions do arise from the fact, to wit:

...as a marketing device, one has to ask the question of WHY subject CBScares.tv to vigorous exposure on the media if it is merely a protective device when they also own the .com(CBScares.com) and are not advertising it, just CBScares.tv.

It leads me to believe that there seems to be a more concerted effort of many media concerns to intentionally expose the public to .tv for one reason or another. Protective is all well and good, actually understood to a degree. But when a company actually owns the .com redirect and chooses NOT to campaign that name, then to my mind the people responsible for that decision has made a commitment to not only NOT shelve the .tv extension, but may even have some names that they may plan to use in the not to distant future.

This is mere speculation on my part, of course, but one has to wonder...

 

[discovernow]

Wait to Oprah starts using Own.tv, every housewife and stay-at-home father such as myself are going to have an "Oragasm" and will rush to the keyboard to get our .tv Don't believe me, watch a tv special called the "Oprah effect"

 

[freedom30]

Wait to Oprah starts using Own.tv, every housewife and stay-at-home father such as myself are going to have an "Oragasm" and will rush to the keyboard to get our .tv Don't believe me, watch a tv special called the "Oprah effect"

...I think you mean "Opragasm"

 

[DU]

Old timers still think in terms of "domains" versus brands and marketing.

cbscares.tv might currently point to cbscares.com = that doesn't MAKE it cbscares.com. It doesn't make it better or worse.. it makes it DIFFERENT.

MLB.TV is as I have pointed out before.. and MrRhee does again.. is a service product brand WAY above a domain name.

It's all about visibility.

Opragasm is brilliant..

 

[Jeff]

Getting to the point of Very important to the success of .tv....in my opinion ... I agree that an unique, stand-alone, and fully developed and promoted Own.TV could be influential (unlike the simple URL Redirect of ™ "CBS Cares" IMHO.

Wait to Oprah starts using Own.tv, every housewife and stay-at-home father such as myself are going to have an "Oragasm" and will rush to the keyboard to get our .tv Don't believe me, watch a tv special called the "Oprah effect"

Best wishes,
Jeff

 

[ViReal]

This is great exposure for .tv. Big companys using this extention means that the general public is begining to recognize .tv as a URL.

 

[Debt.tv]

This is great exposure for .tv. Big companys using this extention means that the general public is begining to recognize .tv as a URL.

That's right....Jeff you have to remember the general public has to learn that .tv is an alternative to .com in order for .tv to be successful. To be honest the average internet user doesn't even know what .com means or why it is used, it's like Bandaid for the virtual world (average users look at the internet and .com as one in the same, people just don't know.... .org is the same way, people think if they have a .org, it must be a non-profit business).

And another thing, the average internet user doesn't go to cbscares.tv and notice a redirect.....only domainers and webdevelopers notice. The hole idea is to get the public to accept .tv as they have .com and then more developers will want a .tv because traffic will come because then people can start to associate the internet with .tv and .com.

It has to be hand and hand between developers, internet users and major advertising.

 

[Jeff]

That's right....Jeff you have to remember the general public has to learn that .tv is an alternative to .com in order for .tv to be successful. To be honest the average internet user doesn't even know what .com means or why it is used, it's like Bandaid for the virtual world (average users look at the internet and .com as one in the same, people just don't know.... .org is the same way, people think if they have a .org, it must be a non-profit business).

And another thing, the average internet user doesn't go to cbscares.tv and notice a redirect.....only domainers and webdevelopers notice. The hole idea is to get the public to accept .tv as they have .com and then more developers will want a .tv because traffic will come because then people can start to associate the internet with .tv and .com.

It has to be hand and hand between developers, internet users and major advertising.

Good post ... in order of topical importance, I simply see it as unique, stand-alone, video-centric development first; and then successful promotion/marketing/branding IMHO. :gl:
Acceptance/adoption comes after actual dedicated development(s), in other words! :imho:

Just my two sense,
Jeff

 

[NJParamus]

I am noticing more and more TV stations embracing .TV. Domainers were truly visionary in this case, espcially the ones who built such great portfolios years ago

 

[Jeff]

I am noticing more and more TV stations embracing .TV. Domainers were truly visionary in this case, espcially the ones who built such great portfolios years ago

The O.P. mentions "CBS Cares" and its importance (IHHO) ... which TV stations are you seeing embracing the ".TV" with unique, developed websites (after having first acquired their respective .TV's from visionary domainers)? :blink:
IYHO.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[DU]

The O.P. mentions "CBS Cares" and its importance (IHHO) ... which TV stations are you seeing embracing the ".TV" with unique, developed websites (after having first acquired their respective .TV's from visionary domainers)? :blink:
IYHO.

Regards,
Jeff

Can you show me evidence that "Jeff Cares" about its importance (IHHO)... on his opinions vis-a-vis end user developments and ecosystem (after having first acquired his respective ".TV" from those visionary members who PM him their ideas? ) :blink:
IYHO

Regards

 

[Vito]

Great O.P. Tech.tv

We have discussed this in another thread already but great .TV News is ALWAYS worth repeating!

I'm just waitin for Oprah to promote my .TV domains now

Vito

 

[Jaco]

The O.P. mentions "CBS Cares" and its importance (IHHO) ... which TV stations are you seeing embracing the ".TV" with unique, developed websites (after having first acquired their respective .TV's from visionary domainers)? :blink:
IYHO.

Regards,
Jeff

Not too many right now, but the .tv TLD/Vanity Brand dynamic seems to be getting some traction in the minds of old media content producers. There's no telling what .tv will do in the future- succeed or fail- but it's definitely one of those forward-looking type things that you can't really judge based solely on whatever it's done up to this point.

 

[virtuali]

I am having an extremely hard time understanding the rational behind "Jeffs" post about it being a "simple redirect" as he puts it. Point blank.. WHO CARES IF IT IS A RE-DIRECT..???? The entire Internet is made up of redirects... For example: Ip's ---> to nameservers ----> namesevers ----> IP's ---> redirect to websites etc etc... Does anybody care about that process...??? Ummm.. NO... they care about the end result... WHERE THEY END UP. The whole point is to get it out to the average user and make it brandable / easy to remember for them....

It is getting really old reading the same stuff over and over and over...

 

[gr8trfoo]

Since you brought up the topic of MLB.TV, I suggest you do more research into what exactly the MLB.TV service is VS the MLB.com site and you will see the MLB is offering an actual product/service online that is called: MLB.TV - sign up for the PAY service and you will see how cohesive they are with the brand-building campaign. No matter how people choose to paint it as a simple redirect as an attempt to de-value its' importance, they are mistaken and spreading DISinformation. Jeff, good luck and your further research.

Funny how Jeff responds to other comments made but not to this one. DISinfo is exactly what he spread in this particular instance. :red:

This is a prime example of exacty why, imo, you are not well regarded here, J. Only you have the power to change this.

 

[Jeff]

^ Personal type attacks unnecessary ... simply open up a new ™ "MLB.TV" pay service / stats / popularity / promotion thread for our future discussion purposes ... the context here is on the topic of "CBScares.TV" and its perceived 'importance to the success of the .TV'; contrary to the O.P. in this instance, I think it's common ™ / brand protection using simple URL redirects (and, yes, MLB.TV still does simple URL redirection with a prominent MLB.com logo atop the target page), so overall we respectfully differ a bit on what is, and what isn't, truly "good publicity" IMHO. :blink:

Of course, no one can or should logically try to discount the critical importance of fully stand-alone, unique, compelling, video-centric developements in the ".TV" (versus easy URL redirects and/or common brand ™ protection)! :yell: :imho:

Best wishes,
Jeff

 

[freedom30]

^ Personal type attacks unnecessary ... simply open up a new ™ "MLB.TV" pay service / stats / popularity / promotion thread for our future discussion purposes ... the context here is on the topic of "CBScares.TV" and its perceived 'importance to the success of the .TV'; contrary to the O.P. in this instance, I think it's common ™ / brand protection using simple URL redirects (and, yes, MLB.TV still does simple URL redirection with a prominent MLB.com logo atop the target page), so overall we respectfully differ a bit on what is, and what isn't, truly "good publicity" IMHO. :blink:

Of course, no one can or should logically try to discount the critical importance of fully stand-alone, unique, compelling, video-centric developements in the ".TV" (versus easy URL redirects and/or common brand ™ protection)! :yell: :imho:

Best wishes,
Jeff

I'll ask you this only once more and move on should you decide NOT to answer...it's ok by me as it's all good...

If, as you state, this is merely a "protection"(which it is as well, of course) why then do they not market the CBScares.com, which they own and redirects to said site.

It would seem to me to be perfectly normal to do that with CBScares.com and shelve CBScares.tv if it was truly a protective issue. But for some reason they are pushing the .tv to the neglect of the .com. Your protection claim is of course valid, but that doesn't wash away the extensive marketing of TELLING PEOPLE TO TYPE THE .TV ADDRESS WHEN THEY OWN THE .COM ONE.

I'll just leave it alone now and if you answer or not I truly enjoy how CBS handled the .tv in this situation to the neglect of CBScares.com

 

[Jeff]

If, as you state, this is merely a "protection"(which it is as well, of course) why then do they not market the CBScares.com, which they own and redirects to said site.

Thanks for staying on topic; I've actually seen two versions ... one, the simple redirect, CBScares.TV and the other simply as "CBS Cares" (with no extension) - both consistent with key brand protection and broad promotion of the generous campaign itself. I honestly wouldn't put a lot of stock in this URL Redirect, as an .TV enthusiast ... better to focus on meaningful stand-alone developments and, for instance, persuading Verisign to take decisive action and get rid of the problematic Legacy hefty annual renewal fees etc. both being more important to the ccTLD's long-term success/survival. :gl: :imho:

Onward and upward,
Jeff

 

[freedom30]

Thanks for staying on topic; I've actually seen two versions ... one, the simple redirect, CBScares.TV and the other simply as "CBS Cares" (with no extension) - both consistent with key brand protection and broad promotion of the generous campaign itself. I honestly wouldn't put a lot of stock in this URL Redirect, as an .TV enthusiast ... better to focus on meaningful stand-alone developments and, for instance, persuading Verisign to take decisive action and get rid of the problematic Legacy hefty annual renewal fees etc. both being more important to the ccTLD's long-term success/survival. :gl: :imho:

Onward and upward,
Jeff

good enuf, thanks...

 

[equity78]

I am having an extremely hard time understanding the rational behind "Jeffs" post about it being a "simple redirect" as he puts it. Point blank.. WHO CARES IF IT IS A RE-DIRECT..???? The entire Internet is made up of redirects... For example: Ip's ---> to nameservers ----> namesevers ----> IP's ---> redirect to websites etc etc... Does anybody care about that process...??? Ummm.. NO... they care about the end result... WHERE THEY END UP. The whole point is to get it out to the average user and make it brandable / easy to remember for them....

It is getting really old reading the same stuff over and over and over...

Exactly Virtuali, rep added.

 

[Jeff]

good enuf, thanks...

You're welcome.