.co Why .CO will will not do well

[adinfinite]

well maybe the title of the thread is a little harsh. I dunno. But I had an experience recently where I was helping my gf to organize a fundraiser. She wanted a website set up but the name we wanted was taken in all good extensions except .co, &.tel. So i decided to go with .CO. To make an otherwise long story short, we had pamphlets and invitations made for the event. Then a series of things happened that made me really question the usefulness and value of .co domains:

1) The guy at the printing shop who was making the promo material called to ask " are you sure the website is coorect? It seems to be missing the letter m at the end" lol

2) When we finally got them printed and handed out to over 700 people we kept getting calls about whether or not the website address was correct. I had to keep telling people to "jut type it in, it works"

3) At the event we had a guess speaker who kept encouraging people to go to www.nameof charity.com ( instead of .co ) and donate. Lol

Now I must admit that it might not have been a good idea to put up a charity site on a .co. But I thought that since the actual charity has its own .org already and this entity and site was created for the sole purpose of raising money for the charity in a one off event, then it wouldnt be much of a problem.

I know we sent a lot of traffic to the .com because the 700 in attendance were told to "tell their friends and family" LOL.

I am thinking that only domainers and people close to the industry ( registrars etc) see value in .co. My experience is that the man on the street who constitutes the "traffic" we all crave is totally confused by it. It will take a lot to get regular everyday people to accept it. Probably way more than a superbowl commercial as Godaddy is planning.

I am not saying it doesnt have some value. But for those dreaming of a .co/.com parity situation I say dream on!

I know many people are gonna point to the fact that overstock bought and is currently using o.co. thats fine. I wonder how much type ins O.co gets that are not from domainers? lol. Besides they have O.com to back it up. LOL

 

[Rehydrated]

Fair point, and some valid issues raised, but it's like anything in life.
Take - their, there, they're for example. All are spelled differently, and all have different meanings, and some people do get them mixed up, but once you know what they mean, and how to spell them, then you don't get them mixed up.
I think the same will apply to any and all DOT.WHATEVER. If I see something on or offline, and take a note of the web address, I don't question if it is wrong, or if the printer made a mistake.
eg. www.believe.us - NOT www.believe.com, you see what I mean?

I have some great .CO's, and I will develope some, and sell some, because I for one like it, and I think it WILL work. Maybe not to the extent of selling www.business.co for millons of dollars, but I think them days are gone regardless of what you are in to, because we have sucked the life and the resources from the planet, so maybe only those selling WATER in the next couple of decades will be the ones to make any REAL money!

 

[John Baron]

Interesting stuff - rep added .

it might be that .co biggest plus - the closeness to .com might as well be .co biggest enemy .

 

[DU]

eg. www.believe.us - NOT www.believe.com, you see what I mean?

There's a big difference between .us and .co comparing to .com. Half the yeasayers are counting on that :

If you were in the UK:
believe.eu vs believe.co.uk
Would get zero questions.

believe.co vs believe.co.uk
Would get questions.

What I don't know is whether you get questions when your domain is:

believe.com.co
believe.com.au

 

[bmugford]

eg. www.believe.us - NOT www.believe.com, you see what I mean?

I don't think there is much confusion between .US and .COM

.US is the ccTLD for the United States and is marketed that way, where as .CO is the ccTLD for Colombia and not marketed that way.

The confusion because of the closeness to .COM is not surprising, and could be a major issue with a marketing campaign.

Brad

 

[Rehydrated]

Brad,
You are just a big .co hater regardless of what point is made :P

 

[bmugford]

Brad,
You are just a big .co hater regardless of what point is made :P

My view on .CO has nothing do do with your ridiculous point that .US is confusing with .COM

The OP posted valid concerns about marketing this new ccTLD to the general public.

The confusion with .CO is obvious, from the typo aspect of the vast majority of people used to .COM

Brad

 

[Sparhawke]

For the opening poster I would suggest using a .org because there can be no confusion caused there at all

Man on the street people are more used to seeing charities on this extension than any other too so it will lend some credibility.

 

[banners]

I do NOT see a bright future for .co

Yes some people will make some money and get some names that work or are developed successfully. I do not see .co EVER being able to compete with the top triad in my opinion .com / .net / .org

Just my opinion.

 

[emjohn]

My view on .CO has nothing do do with your ridiculous point that .US is confusing with .COM

The OP posted valid concerns about marketing this new ccTLD to the general public.

The confusion with .CO is obvious, from the typo aspect of the vast majority of people used to .COM

Brad

I think rehydrated addressed your point earlier. If there is a confusion, it is only temporary.

A man in a moderate-sized city opened up a restaurant called "McDonald" (because it was actually his real name). Smart idea? It didn't seem so at firrt. Some people, used to old habits, got it confused. But eventually, as more advertising was done and people got used to "Mcdonald" and attended the restaurant and the word got around about a "McDonald" resturant, the confusion dissipated. End of story.

 

[RJ]

I find it funny that someone developing on a .CO may actually lose typo traffic to the .COM holder when usually it's the reverse situation that is concerning. Maybe it all balances out.

Thank you for sharing your experience using a .CO. Excellent thread!

 

[Rehydrated]

The point I was making was that WHATEVER the extension was I would say that whoever was displaying it had the correct info displayed, .me, .info, .net, .us, .com, .co.uk etc.

I was only compairing "like to like" because those who use the interweb know that not everything online has to end with .COM, so if I see a site that ends in one of the above, I check that ACTUAL site. Yes, I may also check the .COM out of curiousity, but not everyone who has a site owns the .com of the same site and not every .com and other extension of the same name are related to each other. eg. Fanny does not have the same meaning in the UK as it does in America, or chips etc.

In referrence to the OP, the printer could just have easily asked if he had missed out the .uk from the end of it (.co.uk). or he could have informed him and everyone he was dealing with that day that the .co was a new web extension/address and it was short for whatever he was wanting to referrence it with, company, community etc.

It will take time for it to be internationally recognized by the everyday man in the street, but so does everything.

There is no one sitting here right now that doesn't wish they owned, sex.co or porn.co or tits.co etc. If you say that you wouldn't have like to have obtained these for the reg price then you are lying, or in the wrong game.

 

[ctbon]

I think the most confusing and the suckiest extension is .net. Just my personal opinion based on several factors that I'm too lazy to write about.

The OP made some good points but they were all dependent on the fact that .co has very little exposure. It's brand spanking new. Give it time. It's understandable that they were confused and it will probably happen a lot until .co gets wider renown. You should have gone with .org because it's for a charity and those go together like pb&j. It's also cheaper. Dot co is awesome if you need to reg your company name and the dot com is unattainable or too expensive. Yourbrand.co just looks great and that's why people like it. Maybe it's not as good for generics. I don't know. Dot co is like a good logo, a sharp looking portal to your online existence.

 

[Kate]

Well, there is nothing like first hand experience.

The cheerleaders are saying all is fine and the whole world will love .co, but how many of those cheerleaders have developed websites on a standalone .co domain, in particular without the matching .com to cover bases ?

I think that to make a convincing impression you have to lead by example and take your own medicine.

It's no use saying "give it some time", because most people are still unfamiliar about extensions that were released long ago.

Now I would say that the US is a difficult market because .com is so ingrained in the minds of the masses. Other countries are used to 2-letter ccTLD and more people would realize it's indeed not a typo of .com.

That being said, had the domain been advertised in the UK, the printer's reaction would be "you mean .co.uk ?" :kickass:

 

[hawkeye]

I think rehydrated addressed your point earlier. If there is a confusion, it is only temporary.

A man in a moderate-sized city opened up a restaurant called "McDonald" (because it was actually his real name). Smart idea? It didn't seem so at firrt. Some people, used to old habits, got it confused. But eventually, as more advertising was done and people got used to "Mcdonald" and attended the restaurant and the word got around about a "McDonald" resturant, the confusion dissipated. End of story.

Nice try, but it's just another nonsensical desperation analogy of yours to justify your .co dreams. The original store was called McDonald's, not 'McDonald'. And as they branded and advertised "McDonald's", that is what/where people got used to, not again 'McDonald'! And no store/restaurant that has tried to come along since and used 'McDonald', has gained any notoriety to compete with "McDonald's". Kinda like it has been '.com' that was/has been branded and advertised, that is what people know and use, and no 'similiar' typo extension is going to gain any type of notoriety to compete with it! Wake up! ... ..kids.

 

[emjohn]

Nice try, but it's just another nonsensical desperation analogy of yours to justify your .co dreams. The original store was called McDonald's, not 'McDonald'. And as they branded and advertised "McDonald's", that is what/where people got used to, not again 'McDonald'! And no store/restaurant that has tried to come along since and used 'McDonald', has gained any notoriety to compete with "McDonald's". Kinda like it has been '.com' that was/has been branded and advertised, that is what people know and use, and no 'similiar' typo extension is going to gain any type of notoriety to compete with it! Wake up! ... ..kids.

Who said anything about "competition"? It's clear .com is very well established. I never mention competition. Not once have I said in any way that .co should or could compete with .com. I own both varieties and am pleased with what both can do.

What I am wondering is why this paranoia about .co exists. Are you thinking that there will never be any new extensions entering the market that are successful? Think again...there is bound to be one, whichever one. Even if 50 failed before it.

My Macdonald analogy was more to deflect this so called typo effect that some people believe will always be around. My point was simply to show things can change, in one way or another. Life and markets change and nothing is static. If you think that just because something was "branded" that it is impervious to change, think again. Where there is a will, there is a way.

However, your Orthodox/traditionalist viewpoint is well-taken. Cheers.

 

[hawkeye]

....

My Macdonald analogy was more to deflect this so called typo effect that some people believe will always be around. My point was simply to show things can change, in one way or another. Life and markets change and nothing is static. ...

And a made up, unreal analogy is how you make a point?!?? ...ok..

However, your Orthodox/traditionalist viewpoint is well-taken. Cheers.

Call it what you want, but I don't need to use out of context analogies to justify reality. cheers.

 

[emjohn]

And a made up, unreal analogy is how you make a point?!?? ...ok..

Call it what you want, but I don't need to use out of context analogies to justify reality. cheers.

Not out of context.

Mcdonald = .co
Mcdonalds = .com

Pretty clear analogy if you reread the story. I'm sure there have been many, many similar situations in the business world.

 

[DU]

A man in a moderate-sized city opened up a restaurant called ... "McDonald" (because it was actually his real name)

Smart idea? It didn't seem so at first. Some people, used to old habits, got it confused. Then McDonalds sued him. He went out of business and he was forgotten. End of story.

 

[theo]

Can you imagine that you are talking on the phone with a client and you are trying to explain to go and visit - alphadesign.co. -

What you will going to say:

you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
he - sorry can you repeat..
not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O"...
he - what...yes i understand - alphadesign.com
you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
and so on :D

I find it funny that someone developing on a .CO may actually lose typo traffic to the .COM holder when usually it's the reverse situation that is concerning. Maybe it all balances out.

Thank you for sharing your experience using a .CO. Excellent thread!

 

[emjohn]

Smart idea? It didn't seem so at first. Some people, used to old habits, got it confused. Then McDonalds sued him. He went out of business and he was forgotten. End of story.

Interesting. The last I heard from the personal name bureau is that you had a right to your last name. Are you implying .com should sue .co?

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

Can you imagine that you are talking on the phone with a client and you are trying to explain to go and visit - alphadesign.co. -

What you will going to say:

you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
he - sorry can you repeat..
not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O"...
he - what...yes i understand - alphadesign.com
you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
and so on :D

If you are not interested in informing or explaining something to someone, I see you point. But not everyone is like that.

 

[bmugford]

Interesting. The last I heard from the personal name bureau is that you had a right to your last name. Are you implying .com should sue .co?

Of course you are able to use your last name, within reason. However, if your name was David Coke and you released a new soft drink called "Coke" after your last name that it isn't going to fly.

Brad

 

[emjohn]

Of course you are able to use your last name, within reason. However, if your name was David Coke and you released a new soft drink called "Coke" after your last name that it isn't going to fly.

Brad

OK. I am far from being a TM guru, but does that mean if my last name is McDonald, I can't open a steakhouse called McDonald?

 

[bmugford]

OK. I am far from being a TM guru, but does that mean if my last name is McDonald, I can't open a steakhouse called McDonald?

Most TM law is more gray than black & white. However, a steakhouse called McDonald or McDonald's is not confusingly similar to the fast food restaurant IMO.

TM = Trade + Mark. The mark is the name you use, and the trade is the product or service you offer.

It really comes down to intent and usage. Is the person using the term in a confusingly similar manner?

Brad

 

[emjohn]

Most TM law is more gray than black & white. However, a steakhouse called McDonald or McDonald's is not confusingly similar to the fast food restaurant IMO.

It really comes down to intent and usage. Is the person using the term in a confusingly similar manner?

Brad

That's interesting. Obviously it may be confusing to some but not to others. The intent would be to have a Steakhouse with my last name, that's it.

I suppose that there seems to be a lot of gaffs at WIPO for this very reason.