new gtlds Web.com: New TLDs are not moving the needle

[Arpit131]

Contribution from new top level domain names isn’t significant, CEO says.

Web.com CEO David Brown said:

"So in the gTLD space, that continues to be positive, but we’re not doing back flips here. It’s not that positive. We think it’s good for the market, good for consumers and businesses to have more choices. But it’s not – they’re not flying off the table. .Com and .net and the original extensions still are the force in the marketplace. But as we see more gLTDs and as the market understands them and sees the opportunity, we continue to believe that this will be a positive trend. But at this point, it’s not moving the needle in our business or likely in anyone’s business."

Source

 

[phantasmagoria]

for them maybe, still I get what they are saying. However like one of the comments on there, this is all still new, it's growing as a whole, numbers are climbing.

new gTLD Domains

Top 30 Registrars

"25. Network Solutions, LLC (Web.com) 80,778 0.92%"

 

[Argentum]

You don't need to be genius to understand that new gtld will be largest fail in the history of domain industry. As much there new extentions will be, so much people will prefer .com to out from all this mess of new extensions.

 

[phantasmagoria]

How is it a fail though when it continues to grow? Sure not as fast as some of you guys want it to , but it is growing, that's not a fail imo.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

You don't need to be genius to understand that new gtld will be largest fail in the history of domain industry. As much there new extentions will be, so much people will prefer .com to out from all this mess of new extensions.

Wishful thinking. I assume you have most (all?) of your domains in .com?


Reasoning:

i. People learn fast. Most people/consumers don't know much about new gTLDs yet, but look at the past how fast they learned to put .com at the end of a term to reach a website.

ii. People forget fast. Kids growing up now knowing about new gTLDs won't care that .com used to be king (cry your heart out, it won't change the high speed the internet is developing or the evolution of the domain name addressing system).

iii. It's not a mess, in fact it makes things easier. If you have a domain like universalunderstanding.com:

a) You can't even read that mess of a domain without a PhD in Linguistics.
b) What's that .com thing at the end for again? Assuming, universal.understanding will be available in the future, you will actually be able to read it on an ad that's displayed say on the side of a bus rushing by you.

iv. People don't like obsolete or unnecessary things. As autism.rocks has already proven, .com is an unnecessary suffix. They could have gotten autismrocks.com for a fraction of the $100,000.00 they paid for autism.rocks and a good decision it was considering they had the capital. autismfrocks.com, autismlocks.com, autismsocks.com or autism.rocks - keyword: Legibility. What would you have gone for if the price was not an issue?


Let the heat come .commers - I've got my fire suit on

Brandon

 

[TopShelf Domains]

You don't need to be genius to understand that new gtld will be largest fail in the history of domain industry. As much there new extentions will be, so much people will prefer .com to out from all this mess of new extensions.

 

[asset.domains]

largest fail ? what if icann will waive the minimum fees ? technical support of the registrars is easier than webhosting support, i doubt a fail will happen, especially if the community will ask for it (continue support) , but the registries have to
to do the marketing homework.

 

[Argentum]

Wishful thinking. I assume you have most (all?) of your domains in .com?


Reasoning:

i. People learn fast. Most people/consumers don't know much about new gTLDs yet, but look at the past how fast they learned to put .com at the end of a term to reach a website.

ii. People forget fast. Kids growing up now knowing about new gTLDs won't care that .com used to be king (cry your heart out, it won't change the high speed the internet is developing or the evolution of the domain name addressing system).

iii. It's not a mess, in fact it makes things easier. If you have a domain like universalunderstanding.com:

a) You can't even read that mess of a domain without a PhD in Linguistics.
b) What's that .com thing at the end for again? Assuming, universal.understanding will be available in the future, you will actually be able to read it on an ad that's displayed say on the side of a bus rushing by you.

iv. People don't like obsolete or unnecessary things. As autism.rocks has already proven, .com is an unnecessary suffix. They could have gotten autismrocks.com for a fraction of the $100,000.00 they paid for autism.rocks and a good decision it was considering they had the capital. autismfrocks.com, autismlocks.com, autismsocks.com or autism.rocks - keyword: Legibility. What would you have gone for if the price was not an issue?


Let the heat come .commers - I've got my fire suit on

Brandon

Statistics shows everything..it shows that everyone can love new gtld's except internet users.. why ONLY .com used by largest companies in the world (check for example 10.000 largest companies)? Not because some of their staff likes it, they choose it because internet users respect/trust/know .com, if such nice extensions like .net & .info failed against .com, then what to talk abut new extensions? Crappy extensions like .xyz even was not able to reach 1% of .com market share. I understand that a lot of people followed trend, for example because of Google which published press realease on .xyz (but still looking to purchase real domain in .com for their future main website of Alphabet)..and domainers who purchased this ### now hope to sell it someone, but i have good news, you can sell it to same resellers who things same.. but don't waste your time and not wait end-users for this domains.

 

[TopShelf Domains]

Statistics shows everything..it shows that everyone can love new gtld's except internet users.. why ONLY .com used by largest companies in the world (check for example 10.000 largest companies)? Not because some of their staff likes it, they choose it because internet users respect/trust/know .com, if such nice extensions like .net & .info failed against .com, then what to talk abut new extensions? Crappy extensions like .xyz even was not able to reach 1% of .com market share. I understand that a lot of people followed trend, for example because of Google which published press realease on .xyz (but still looking to purchase real domain in .com for their future main website of Alphabet)..and domainers who purchased this ### now hope to sell it someone, but i have good news, you can sell it to same resellers who things same.. but don't waste your time and not wait end-users for this domains.

There is only one thing constant in life, change.

Once banks and bigger companies innovate the change, the herd will follow.

 

[asset.domains]

@Reseller : comparing 10k companies that started before ngtld program and talking about statistics is cool again about respect and trust there is no technical difference between words after the dot, only the price and your pockets... anyway thanks for the good news, you can also report top ngtld registrars resale profit to web.com guys, because the business is here.

maybe you want to see aftetmarket prices for ngtld go to 7 fig ? like the nnnn ? why ? remove a fig and create great names !

what if after the nnnn will be the ngtld turn ? it will be good news or bad news for you ?

 

[brandnow]

xyz will eventually be a massive fail.

Domainers are speculating on xyz since mid-August, 2015 snapping up names for hundreds of dollars. In the end though xyz will be the .tk or .cc of the ngtlds.. this I'm starting to believe more and more every day.

Other ngtlds that make sense and have meaning though, which are affordable and do not have a crazy number of "reserved" names, will do well both for real world usage and aftermarket long-term.

 

[Andy Dexter]

For gtlds, some hate, some like. It doesn' matter.
Everybody has their own minds and different minds result in quite different choices.
We can't convince each other. No point to argue with each other any more.

 

[JayT]

New gtlds will gain some traction gradually over time. There are many problems though. COM is the gold standard, so to speak. Usually with these type of things there is always a medium, or say, control which is and will be for a long time, COM. Most of the extensions only make sense with a very limited number of words. I do think that someday good keywords in the extensions will be very valuable, comparable to .coms, but in rare instances. The problem is time/return. For example, say you get a good generic like breaking.news. Today what would you give? How much would you expect in x years from now? If you make money, great! Other problem, what if you invested all your money on these, and not into 5L or 6N or anything else hot between now and then. My opinion is you can make money in premium gtld keyword, but it's a slow process and it's better to either diversify along with current trends or better yet just beat the trend. Again, I don't see new gtlds being a top trend right now. Keywords being bought is all. I know some .xyz fan is reading this and thinking it's a trend. No, that is ridiculous. It is low reg fee and that is it!! There are always rare outliers. I am sure I can argue against xyz really well but, it is unnecessary. Note I am just 1 person that thinks it is foolish to bet .xyz.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

Regarding .xyz I admit that I'm really unsure. They have the biggest number of registrations, yet premium domains resell at only a few hundred dollars. I think at this point considering all the information we have, it could either be a second .com or a card house waiting to collapse.

If it's a card house, the size is of no relevance as recent Ponzi schemes have proven (and I want in no way imply .xyz or any other gTLD is a Ponzi scheme - I'm just drawing a comparison here). A Ponzi scheme is powered and kept alive by new investors - in our case, that would be a continuously growing amount of domain registrations. When new investors or new domain registrations begin to stagnate and people try to cash out but there is not enough capital or in our case domain buyers, a card house collapses pretty much the same way a Ponzi scheme would.

Again, I'm in no way implying any gTLD is a Ponzi scheme or a card house - it's just a matching comparison and while none of us can look into the future, we can learn and draw conclusions from the past because these things already happened and we can put exact numbers on it.

Just to put this into perspective:

Bernard Madoff: As of December 2008 losses were estimated to be $65 billion
Allen Stanford: Estimated losses $8 billion

I don't know what the company assets of .xyz are but it will only be a tiny fraction of the above mentioned and it wouldn't even cause a blip on the radar. Again, I'm not implying that .xyz or any other gTLD is a Ponzi scheme - I'm just drawing a comparison between a Ponzi scheme and a card house because it shares many similarities, most importantly that size (or number of registrations) is totally irrelevant.

Brandon

 

[Brandon.Domains]

Statistics shows everything..it shows that everyone can love new gtld's except internet users.. why ONLY .com used by largest companies in the world (check for example 10.000 largest companies)? Not because some of their staff likes it, they choose it because internet users respect/trust/know .com, if such nice extensions like .net & .info failed against .com, then what to talk abut new extensions? Crappy extensions like .xyz even was not able to reach 1% of .com market share. I understand that a lot of people followed trend, for example because of Google which published press realease on .xyz (but still looking to purchase real domain in .com for their future main website of Alphabet)..and domainers who purchased this ### now hope to sell it someone, but i have good news, you can sell it to same resellers who things same.. but don't waste your time and not wait end-users for this domains.

Uhmm maybe because .com had a (commercial) head start of about 30 years and a quasi monopoly until now? Refer to point ii. of my original post.

Mmm amnesia...your best friend or your worst enemy

Brandon

 

[Recons.Com]

It is not just the headstart.
It is the meaning "anything commercial", in that sense better than "co" which means just company
it is the ease to pronounce it (on par with net)
it is becoming the default and there is no changing that without investing billions and billions and even then it might not be possible
all the rest of the domains can try to take their niche, but no heads on with .com. In the foreseeable future (and that is the only time relevant) .com will own 80% of sizable important acitvities/transactions/etc.
So yes it is fine if some investors want to focus on niche, if they think they have found their unique window, but no need to pretend otherwise.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

It is not just the headstart.
It is the meaning "anything commercial", in that sense better than "co" which means just company
it is the ease to pronounce it (on par with net)
it is becoming the default and there is no changing that without investing billions and billions and even then it might not be possible
all the rest of the domains can try to take their niche, but no heads on with .com. In the foreseeable future (and that is the only time relevant) .com will own 80% of sizable important acitvities/transactions/etc.
So yes it is fine if some investors want to focus on niche, if they think they have found their unique window, but no need to pretend otherwise.

If you take the head start away and theoretically place .com's launch around the same time of other gTLDs, .com would definitely have made a good gTLD.

Would it have been the number one? No. Would it have been within the top five gTLDs excluding IDNs? Maybe, maybe not (.site, .web, .online, .website, dare I say it... .xyz)? Would it have been in the top 5 including IDNs? Definitely not. Would it have made the top 10? Probably, but I wouldn't have bet my money on it in this hypothetical scenario.

Point being is that gTLDs are not only being heavily registered, they are also already actively being used - not only by small businesses and individuals but also large corporations. This will slowly erode the value of .com domains as registrations spread out across many different gTLDs and a lot of (.com) people don't like that. Just look at a few high profile naysayer interviews from 2014 and then compare it with the actual numbers of 2015 (both absolute number of registrations and the top sales prices gTLDs are already achieving barely a year later).

Brandon

 

[JB Lions]

If you take the head start away and theoretically place .com's launch around the same time of other gTLDs, .com would definitely have made a good gTLD.

Would it have been the number one? No. Would it have been within the top five gTLDs excluding IDNs? Maybe, maybe not (.site, .web, .online, .website, dare I say it... .xyz)? Would it have been in the top 5 including IDNs? Definitely not. Would it have made the top 10? Probably, but I wouldn't have bet my money on it in this hypothetical scenario.

Point being is that gTLDs are not only being heavily registered, they are also already actively being used - not only by small businesses and individuals but also large corporations. This will slowly erode the value of .com domains as registrations spread out across many different gTLDs and a lot of (.com) people don't like that. Just look at a few high profile naysayer interviews from 2014 and then compare it with the actual numbers of 2015 (both absolute number of registrations and the top sales prices gTLDs are already achieving barely a year later).

Brandon

There is no if and what if, just reality.

Then you talk about naysayer interviews and compare it with actual numbers. Well, failed to meet expectations:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/forecast-33-million-get-around-6.867467/#post-4923658

I think somebody posted new regs of .coms outnumbering all the new ones combined.

There is another thread where I posted some numbers that individual gltds wanted to hit and failed, and then you had people trying argue terminology being used. Predictions vs. expectations etc.

There is a lot of pumping each other up, but when actual numbers get brought up, it's not a conversation some want to have.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

There is no if and what if, just reality.

Then you talk about naysayer interviews and compare it with actual numbers. Well, failed to meet expectations:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/forecast-33-million-get-around-6.867467/#post-4923658

I think somebody posted new regs of .coms outnumbering all the new ones combined.

Yes, and? It will be a gradual process and the fact that .com numbers are initially increasing has no importance in the big pictures. In fact, it is the first sign of a bubble about to burst. This is often misinterpreted as a "good sign" sort of like when the seawater first retreats before a tsunami wave hits a coast or that the earth is getting warmer yet many regions experience record cold temperatures.

I won't bother reading your link - a thousand people, a thousand opinions. I read a 2014 interview of a few quite high profile people today regarding what they think about gTLDs and their future. The only two naysayers have been proven to be dead wrong by now and had a conflict of interest in the first place (i.e. were somehow connected with .coms).

Brandon

 

[Recons.Com]

if .com is a bubble and it bursts, the new gtlds will be total bust.
It is .com success that drives the rest, just like the success of few guys in domain industry drives millions to buy domains, success of Messi and Ronaldo inspires little kids play soccer etc.
With all the best .com taken, actually the new ones should have had more regs, at least, together.