The first baseball game of the season got underway tonight with the traditional Red Sox/ Yankees matchup.
Major League Baseball is heavily promoting MLB.tv as a platform for people to watch baseball on MLB.tv or MLB.com.
Major League baseball could have just used it’s .com to promote the product, so its notable that is using the .TV version.
Great thing for the .TV extension
But on the other hand the domain NFL.TV is still available for purchase for just $3K and the National Football League for some reason is not seeing the value of spending the $3K to offer services using the domain or to just lock it up.
Sure the NFL owns NFL.com and anyone else would have a very hard time using NFL.TV, yet for $3,000 how does the league not pick it up?
I’m sure if anyone else picked up the domain NFL.TV and started using it for say a fantasy football site or to promote betting on NFL games, the NFL would spend hundreds of thousands, even millions to stop the use, yet they won’t spend $3K to avoid the whole problem.
As I have said before, big business needs to hire domainers as consultants.
The NFL divides $6.5 billion between its teams in 2009.
How could the NFL not spend $3,000 to lock up NFL.TV?
Along the same lines the BBC has not spent the $3K it would take to lock up BBC.TV.
Amazing.
Daryl says
Well, not really “amazing” that they do not secure these names. MLB.tv may be a good move by the MLB, yet it ONLY works with advertising. So if NFL gets on board w/ .TV then the value of .tv rises. So it is just domain inflation, but has no merit because the real value as we all know is in the .com. Even MLB knows if they advertise the .tv they will still get the overflow of the .com They also own mlbtv.com – so they have covered all bases 😉
But saying that the NFL should do the same is coming from a viewpoint that wants this to happen. If NFL gets in to .tv then it could raise the value of your .tv domains. But .tv is a crap extension, it has a novelty effect and it works if the corporation wants it to. But you are insisting that all companies should own their .tv – The real question should be why is MLB promoting .tv? Maybe they did hire a domainer, and maybe it wasn’t necessary for them to put any effort in .tv. Maybe it would be best to just use the .com if you own it… Just saying.
<3 your blog btw.
Attila says
Back to basics guys, dot TV needs to learn how to do proper marketing. For instance, if I owned dot TV, I’d be giving away a lot of the domains to these large organizations on the simple terms they promote dot TV as much as possible. Whats giving away 100 names at $3,000 USD each when it doesn’t cost them next to nothing. Sure 100 names sold for $3,000 USD each is $300,000 but nothing can buy you exposure like 100 large companies promoting the shit out of your TLD.
Its a long term marketing concept that so many companies overlook because they look at quarterly earnings rather then annual earnings. If it weren’t for companies and board directors wanting to get paid on a quarterly basis, these marketing concepts would still exist.
everything.tv says
NFL owned the name for years Michael, they dropped in 2007 along with a lot of the team names .tv. A couple of them were made premiums then, the rest were regged. Names like Jets.tv and Cowboys.tv etc… The owner of Hollywood.tv paid $12,000 for NFL.tv and held for one year then he dropped it.
everything.tv says
Here is a story I did on the NFL and .tv Mike.
http://www.everything.tv/2010/02/the-curious-case-of-the-nfl-and-tv-.html
Michael Lockyear says
The concept of “premium names” seems to be a bit of a scam. I am not surprised that companies are avoiding them.
M. Menius says
The NFL should re-acquire NFL.TV. .TV will be a big part of the future of internet media. Letting thst drop was short-sighted.
james says
The fact the .tv market is so ‘all over the show’ with NFL saying NO, but MLB saying YES is what can be loosely termed: ‘opportunity’.
Yes, MLB may look as dumb as dumb can look in a few months for believing in .TV, but equally NFL might seriously look like the village idiot for not taking up the name (that’s if they actually know it is available – this hasn’t been the best promoted release of names I’ve ever seem).
All in all, opportunities are everywhere in .Tv right now – some good, some bad.
The BBC don’t even know BBC.tv is available, yet Five.TV in the UK make it part of their everyday program set-up and publicize it like crazy.
It is this craziness and aware/unaware positive/negative stance that can make people lots of money – or lose them their shirts!
Personally, I would sit back until I knew which way the wind was blowing – but I’ve seen rather a large gust in the past two weeks. Which way it was going – I think you’ll have to make your own mind up on that!
Domo says
wsj.tv was available for 375 or 400 usd or so a few days ago…
Now there is a domainer playing with fire via DS parked page …
MHB says
Domo
I certainly would advise any domainer not to acquire any of these types of domains, and certainly not to park them.
Again if we see the WSJ file a UDRP it will cost them at least 10X more for that proceeding, than they could have bought the domain for.
MHB says
Everything
I understand that the NFL like a lot of us didn’t get involved or stay involved in the .TV extension when they were whacking you for thousands or tens of thousands a year in renewals.
However the game has changed and $3K for the NFL is like you thinking about whether to buy something that is for sale for 10 for a penny.
Jim Holleran says
Verisign/Enom should be ashamed of themselves for trying to sell Trademarked names.
Also, if I hear anything changing about existing premiums prior to March 18th, I will let you know. Chris Sheridan who I know personally, I trying to get more info and will share what I know.
Thanks, Jim
windy city says
…with the recent events of the extension since March 18, I assume that the NFL not taking a .tv name is moot. Personally, it would be nice, but I don’t care if NFL wants to maintain their present course or not.
Too many fish in the sea right now to care what that sport does. And even though OWN.tv redirects to a .com right now, it won’t for long. Guess who?
Jim Holleran says
If Oprah ever mentions Own.tv, every “cool-aid” drinking women out there will want a .tv. Even my wife will want one then:)
Domo says
MHB
Domo
I certainly would advice any domainer to acquire any of these types of domains, certainly not to park them.
*********
Did you mean “don’t acquire” ?
and I wasn’t advocating parking it , this example it’s obviously infirnging
(without beign a hypocrit , had my share of conflictive domain )
****************
To Jim H:
you are the only .tv domainer that has his feet on the ground and show common sense , however I think you are expecting to much of the Oprah effect .
Also enom can’t police what people do with domains.
Domo
AR says
Domo,
Didn’t you own WSJ.tv at one point?
Domo says
yep…
But never parked…
I had a weather page thru dot.tv
I was hoping they knocked my door but the didn’t
WSJ won’t do a tv channel becuase of a contractual obligation with CNBC.
AR says
Domo,
Understood, but from a pure good faith registration standpoint, what would the intent be on registering WSJ.tv? Weather and WSJ? Where is the connection? Just trying to understand the viewpoint and thinking.
Domo says
Like any other Acronymn/ domain you are hoping somebody else will see value on it , while hopefully using it in a ” not infringing way”.
Opportunity is the name of the game.
Attila says
WSJ – Watch Steven Jogging dot TV…
Steven being my middle name. Though I don’t jog. Or run. I jer…ok nevermind…
:-p
Lee N. Costa says
The NFL is just saying they don’t really need it to survive and thrive….guess they feel their industry is a tad bigger than the domain industry where the highest priced sale = less than a years salary for their stars…
MHB says
Lee
I understand they don’t “need it” just like MLB didn’t need MLB.tv and had branded the .com.
But it still as a business decision doesn’t make sense.
As I say if someone registers that domains and put up a link to a gambling website the NFL would spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees to get the domain, so why not just get it now for $3K
Jim Holleran says
I agree to MHB on this. I expect somebody from outside the United States will end up buying the name even though Verisign/Enom should of never put that trademark name out there.
Thanks, Jim
Domo says
2010 April 5
Jim Holleran I agree to MHB on this. I expect somebody from outside the United States will end up buying the name even though Verisign/Enom should of never put that trademark name out there.
Thanks, Jim
*********
They can’t police names like that…
abc, cbs, aaa, nbc, bbc, pbs , cnbc, fox, where does it end?
I bet you some of your names (as well as mine) have some kind of a TM somewhere in the planet, ultimately is what use you give the name.
If abc.com or nbc.com was available…
you wouldn’t regg it?
Jim Holleran says
In 2000, I registered HeadlineNews.tv (non-premium) and 3 months after that, CNN sent me 3 different letters claiming Trademark, threaten to sue me, and wanted the name.
I sent CNN proof that it was not trademarked, told them those are 2 words from the “dictionary”, and to go “fu@#K themselves. (I was a hot head then, but toned down when I had kids:) Then they sent a 4th letter and wanting to buy the name for $50, which I ignored. Still have the name 10 years later.
However, in 1998, I registered a name with Nastaq in it (was a domain virgin then:) letter came, and handed over the domain; faster than Tiger Woods jumps in bed with a “mistress”. I hope and think everything is cool now with my portfolio now, except my wife of course:)
Thanks, Jim
FTV says
MLB is centralized and NFL is not. J Jones has many exclusives outside of NFL.
There is a reason they let all of those domains go. Don’t act to fool, these guys are ont as dumb as you present them. Maybe they will buy it again for $3K maybe not. They can get it whenever they want.
Rashid Mahmood says
The NFL is just saying they don’t really need it to survive and thrive….guess they feel their industry is a tad bigger than the domain industry where the highest priced sale = less than a years salary for their stars…
Ozie Jackson says
Mark my words, the NFL and other organizations like them, who are willing to shun .TV and some other beneficial extensions as marketing tools are the same companies who will shell out $100,000/yr to ICANN for a vanity extension, like http://www.TV.nfl. With mediocre results.
Stupidity and ignorance reign in many corporate towers imo.
Larry says
Major League baseball could have just used it’s .com
should be
Major League baseball could have just used its .com
Danny Pryor says
I don’t understand why any outfit, with the available resources of the NFL or BBC, wouldn’t lock in every single TLD for their brand. But that’s me. Watch what happens if someone buys NFL.tv and tosses up content related to FIFA; that could be fun to watch!