debate When are domainers/businesses going to recognise the value of these keyword perfect domains?

[interassets]

I'm still utterly amazed that over a year into the new gTLD's, domainers, investors and brands.. still don't see the value in them? Living in the past or what? Who's going to be the brave soul that launches a big marketing campaign with a gTLD, for them all to suddenly become widely recognised as domain names?

It's insane! One of my biggest regrets as a domainer is acquiring art.investments – a keyword perfect domain that absolutely does what it says on the tin... to list it on Flippa with $349 premium listing and for it to only sell for $550! I expected at least $x,xxx+ given the value of the art business (transactions upto $250million/painting.)

But I feel as domainers, we're limiting our own success in these new territories because we aren't willing to gamble in common sense. Staying with .com, .net etc. is playing it safe, but it's short sighted.

Art.investments or artinvestments.com .. which makes more logical sense? Which is easier to remember? Perhaps .com does just now, but the smart domainer predicts future trends.

I really believe in 5-10 years that the gTLD's will be the standard format. People will look at .com,.net etc. like dialing an international dial code every time you phone someone. Shouldn't we be encouraging the use of these domains by pushing them and ditching the fear of the unknown. Come on guys, see the future!

What's your thoughts?

(Disclaimer: Yes, I have crazy.discount for sale just now, and yes this post is out of rage at the $11 price it's sitting at. A beautiful, memorable and brandable domain for $11..! However, this a real post looking for real discussion on the subject. )

 

[siron]

Even a heavyweight like Google does not succeed at everything they do. They have their share of flops and retired projects.
Google was a .mobi backer too... just saying.

Google fails at most of the projects they do as that is there business model. They only need a small percent to succeed and they try to focus on projects with huge upside so the ones that hit, more than pay for the 90% that fail. They think nTLDs have huge upside potential. They didn't know which extensions customers would be most receptive to, so they applied for a bunch. Maybe it'll turn out customers want a choice.

What I think about .com does not matter, it's the reality that counts. Not opinions. The figures tell us that .com has grown as much as all new extensions combined (in spite of zone stuffing and cheating). Adoption of new TLDs by end users is nowhere. Not your fault, but that's the way it is.

The question to ask is why. The answer is obviously marketing. Google will market tlds specifically. Google owns huge ad space in silicon valley. They have buses running from sf to mountain view every 5 minutes. They own billboards that founders, ceos, employees, small business owners and the avg joe drive by everyday in the tech capital of the world. They dominate the online advertising space. Google not only has the motive but the means to market their new tlds.

Sure, the hopers will say "give it some more time" but it's been a year already. What makes you think the next 4 years are going to be drastically different ?

The nTLD program has not been completed. Not all tlds have launched. It has been a year since the first nTLD launched, but it has not been a year since the program completed. "The hopers" would say to at least wait until the new tld program has been completed before saying it has failed. A more reasonable approach would provide for several years after the new gtld program has completed to deem it a failure.

You are falling for the trap too. Technological advances don't have much of an impact on Internet infrastructure. The Internet is based on protocols and technologies that are awfully stable. Consider E-mail, HTTP, TCP-IP: 20-year old, 30-year old, 40-year old technologies. Yep, HTTP 2.0 is coming.

Tech advances have a HUGE impact on internet infrastructure. For example there is a reason people want more fiber laid down to replace existing cable. Fiber delivers more data per time. Faster speeds are only needed because of the advances in tech that make things like streaming video, Multiplayer Online Games, and VOIP possible. Advances in hardware make cloud storage viable and free/cheap. If your going to store GB's in the cloud, your not going to want to do that over dialup. If you have more packets coming down your fiber than you did with cable your going to need better routers.
Internet infrastructure enhancement is a symptom of advances in technology. In current events, this is a huge topic and point of concern in the whole net neutrality debate.

Protocols like TCP-IP are not the same type of protocols as HTTP and SMTP (email) and cannot reasonably be compared in this way. TCP/IP are building blocks for HTTP and SMTP, and tons of other 'Application' level protocols.
Also new protocols are being written all the time. The landscape of the internet is constantly being redefined with the addition of new protocols, and with the increase/decrease in use of protocols. Streaming video wasn't all the rage 10 years ago, but now DASH, the protocol Netflix uses to deliver streaming video to your computer is getting quite a bit of use.

If anything, some of the new extensions will have a short existence and should deserve a museum of their own.

Yeah I agree. We can throw some cc's in there too.

 

[carob]

Google fails at most of the projects they do as that is there business model. They only need a small percent to succeed and they try to focus on projects with huge upside so the ones that hit, more than pay for the 90% that fail. They think nTLDs have huge upside potential.

Yes, people have said that Google is the world'd first "agile" company, meaning they are willing to try stuff out and just dump it - even if it works - in ways a traditional company would not. Google don't see these things as failures, just experiments.

Their interest in domains might be defensive, or as some people say they may give them away free. Or they are just gambling like everyone else?

So where would paying domand for domains to actually use on these new tlds come from? People switching their domain, or people starting new sites? How many new domains are needed each year in the real world for live sites?

It's just possible that Google sees a huge demand for domains not from people, but from objects - their own vision of IoT sees each object having its own url, removing the need for a proprietary app to understand it, but needing to use a domain somewhere.

 

[Kate]

...
Google will market tlds specifically. Google owns huge ad space in silicon valley. They have buses running from sf to mountain view every 5 minutes. They own billboards that founders, ceos, employees, small business owners and the avg joe drive by everyday in the tech capital of the world. They dominate the online advertising space. Google not only has the motive but the means to market their new tlds.

Hmm how do you know ? Do you work for Google perhaps ? I also heard in 2006 that mobile phone makers would add a .mobi button
We all know it's a big and influential company. But they have already achieved domination by other means.

Also, I think this is a US-centric mindset. Outside America, there is more interest in the local extensions. In fact, the ccTLDs have already overshadowed .com in many local markets. As a result, consumers are somewhat indifferent to new extensions. This is certainly true for Europe, while in some parts of the world many ccTLDs are still underdeveloped/embryonic (especially Africa).
Which leads to similar consequences: just because their TLDs are in shambles, does that mean Africans (for example) are going to eagerly embrace other extensions ?

 

[siron]

So where would paying domand for domains to actually use on these new tlds come from? People switching their domain, or people starting new sites? How many new domains are needed each year in the real world for live sites?

Yes, and as you said earlier investing in a nTLD should be similar to investing in a stock.
These are few questions we need to ask before investing in a new extension.
How many new domains each year need to be sold for the extension to gain resale value?
How many domains are projected to be sold?

We all know it's a big and influential company. But they have already achieved domination by other means.

One must stay vigilant to maintain dominance, and not rest on one's laurels. Tech evolves too fast with relation to other industries. Google adapted their strategy to account for this. Verisign has a great business model. Google wanted to get in on the action. Verisign has never (until recently IIRC) marketed .com.
I suppose I find it difficult to believe Google wont market a single one of their ~40 new tlds, especially when advertising is as natural as breathing for them.

Also, I think this is a US-centric mindset. Outside America, there is more interest in the local extensions. In fact, the ccTLDs have already overshadowed .com in many local markets. As a result, consumers are somewhat indifferent to new extensions. This is certainly true for Europe, while in some parts of the world many ccTLDs are still underdeveloped/embryonic (especially Africa).

This makes a lot of sense. From an investment standpoint I would then ask if there are any new tlds that could have a global reach. We know a few new tlds have sold names for large price tags even while being US centric. If a new gTLD was designed for a global audience, I wonder how much more success it might be met with.

 

[distlej]

Just My Humble Opinion:

Dotcom is the most recognizable technology branding term in the WORLD lexicon.
It has no nationality.
It's become synonymous with the Internet and Technology savvy companies.

Fortune 500 companies know this and are willing to pay for it.
People just assume that the website of ANY important, upcoming, trustworthy company ends in
DOTCOM

As a result, DOTCOM will always be king from a branding perspective.

Just as Kleenex has become synonymous with tissues
Hoover became synonymous with vacuums in a previous generation
Dotcom has become synonymous with the Internet

Yes, there will be some companies that go against the trend and succeed. But they are the exception. There will always be companies who can't afford or are unwilling to invest in a dotcom.
But the successful ones eventually will, because they KNOW what I described above.


I can't control or change any of this, so I DON'T FIGHT IT.
The safest investor follows the trends and profits from them.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Alice Wonder Miscreations]

Who's going to be the brave soul that launches a big marketing campaign with a gTLD, for them all to suddenly become widely recognised as domain names?

I'm actually doing that - attempting to get numerous keyword[dot]TLD domains to put together as a marketing strategy.

I currently own 6 keyword[dot]ngTLD domains plus keywordNetwork[dot]com.

But it is very problematic and the registries themselves are part of the issue with premium domain names.

Paying one yearly premium to have access to that keyword on several ngTLDs might be okay but paying 7 different yearly premiums just doesn't make sense.

And there is the issue of too many similar ngTLDs.

keyword[dot]website and keyword[dot]web - keyword[dot]website is available but I don't own it because it is premium, and keyword[dot]web is better anyway, why pay a yearly premium for keyword[dot]website when what I really want but have no guarantee of getting is keyword[dot]web?

What if I don't get keyword[dot]web, that will make owning keyword[dot]website worthless. And if I do get keyword[dot]website, will a domainer see that I am interested it and try to get keyword[dot]web on general registration before I do just so they can flip it to me for $1,000 in profit?

Too many similar TLDs exist. I'm trying this thing anyway but I understand why many businesses are choosing not to and instead just want to stick with .com and sub-domains of their .com for various parts of their business.

I own keyword[dot]audio but should I also get keywordAudio[dot]com? I'm tempted to because I bet there are people who will see keyword[dot]audio and type keywordAudio[dot]com into their browser.

keywordVideo[dot]com and keywordChat[dot]com are already owned by a competitor, in use by them.

I really really really like the concept of launching a campaign around a keyword via keyword [dot] TLD where the TLD is descriptive metadata, but there are practical issues in doing so, the biggest being the premium domain prices and how many very similar TLDs exist that one would need to obtain to avoid confusion with consumers hearing one and typing the other.

keyword perfect domains won't be seen in general as a good thing as long as ICANN keeps releasing similar names like .theater and .theatre or .webcam and .cam etc. and they won't be seen as a good thing as long as so many registries have high yearly premiums for keywords.

And there are numerous cases where a domain is listed as not available yet it actually is, but you have to e-mail the registry to even get a price.

It's crazy.

.com isn't crazy. Easy to find out whether any domain is registered or not, no yearly premium, you might have to pay a domainer a one time fee but that's one time and is determined by the fair market - not yearly and determined by the whim of a registry.

That's why keyword perfect domains aren't picking up value. I'm trying it, but even what I want to do is limited because of both premiums and confusingly similar TLDs.

Business doesn't want that kind of confusion, they just don't.

 

[garptrader]

Many of the new TLDs sound neat for project development without having to fork over $XXXX+ to some speculator for a domain name. However, it should be noted I have seen numerous individuals on this forum announce they want to launch a project, have a list of recent handregs and ask "which sounds best? " Why don't they consider a decent aftermarket domain if they are really serious about their project? This is the same mindset of small businesses or limited budget developers. So when TLDs like .Net (1985) and .TV (2000) which are short and have existed for a lot longer than five years only have marginal aftermarket interest, I believe it is unrealistic to expect end users to rush in to acquiring new TLDs from domain investors at $XXXX+ prices in the near future (yes registries are already selling some of the best keyword combinations to select end users but it is much harder to find premium combinations at investable prices). Now go to Godaddy Auctions, type in the keyword of a domain you want to sell, see how many competing options there are and ask yourself if you were developer, what would you do? Why fork over four to five figures for a domain when you can easily add a word or a few characters and get one for $15-$50? Factor in the hurdle of premium renewals for many new TLDs and one quickly burns limited resources.