Forbes just published an article on the new gTLD”s and its less than glowing.
Here are some of the highlights of the piece written by Roger Kay:
“It’s been nearly a year since a whole set of spanking new Internet domain names first came to market. These names —which in technical circles are called “generic top-level domains” or gTLDs — were just becoming available in January 2014…fresh extensions — snazzy end-tags like .apple, .guru, .pizza, .bike, and .singles — which were added to the familiar existing domain suffixes — like .com, .net, .org, and .edu.
At that time, I took a stab here in Forbes at what consequences might follow from the instant creation of all this new digital real estate.
And it’s pretty much turned out the way I thought.
“The additional virtual territory does not seem to have been a tremendous bonanza — at least so far.
“All the fancy new Internet suffixes have failed to set off a gold rush”
“In a recent study conducted by Moz, 62 percent of Americans, 53 percent of Australians, and 67 percent of marketers said they were unlikely to trust a quote from .insurance based on the domain alone. So, it’s possible that consumers aren’t ready to place their full faith in the new domains. In addition, industry participants have observed that, despite some claims to the contrary, the new names offer no discernible improvement in search-engine-optimization (SEO) results.”
“And if consumers aren’t flocking to the new domains, commercial entities have their own reasons to be wary of them.”
“And as if that weren’t enough, the new domains can breed confusion through something as simple as the distinction between singular and plural names. Not only will there be suffixes for both singular and plural word forms (e.g., .car and .cars), but also synonyms (e.g., .realestate and .realty) and different verb forms (e.g., .vote and .voting). If a would-be customer tries to visit davidsamazing.car, but accidentally ends up at davidsamazing.cars, David’s small automobile restoration business could lose a customer.”
“There’s also a cost aspect to this problem of prismatic domain names. If David wishes to register davidsamazing.car, he also has to register davidsamazing.cars, just to keep someone else from grabbing it and causing reputation damage or a loss of business. And these costs include not only potentially inflated upfront costs, but also less obvious costs associated with standing up a new domain, like new letterhead, business cards, and other branded documents.”
“In contrast to the slippery territory of the new domains, the existing names are solidly established. The .com extension has been around for almost 30 years, and every Fortune 500 company has a .com registration.”
“The top 50 global brands direct customers to a .com homepage.”
“Almost all educational institutions use a .edu suffix.”
“And others, like .org, clearly stand for nonprofit organizations. People have come to rely on these familiar domains and are more than a little hesitant to incur the costs and uncertainty of venturing into new territory. Not a single leading brand has switched its online identity to one of the new domains, despite all the hype surrounding their introduction a year ago.”
“Perhaps this situation will change as more branded domains come to market, but it might not, as even supporters of the new names are not as sure as they once were about their prospects.”
years ago I would equate 800 numbers as dot com and all the rest like 888, 866 855… as non dot coms like dot net and dot org.
but I have no problem dialing 855 and 866 and 888 numbers now and do not think they took a second seat to 800 numbers.
point being is these non dot coms may follow the same logic – but not beginning for another decade or more
“no problem” does not mean “like” or find as meaningful as “800.” I still think “800,” like it, and do not like the other extensions. “888” is okay, but the others are less desirable. I don’t know if you’re really right about “second seat” even though the others are in use.
This article failed to look at real successes like coffee.club, shaving.club, ViratKohli.club, lovato.club and thousands of other great sites. New domains are coming. But we are all just getting started.
Didn’t read the article, but if it overlooked .club then certainly that’s an oversight we all can acknowledge to one degree or another. But it seems .club would still just be an almost lone “exception to the rule” in a vast ocean of other boats I would think. I certainly like .club.
And p.s., where’s that working whois over at nic.club? Still waiting after all this time… 🙂
whois.nic.club
Jane, please tell me you are not being funny. I’ve been trying to view whois there since the beginning, and I wrote to him about it before a long time ago over at Rick’s blog. Since the beginning not even a single domain has ever shown up in whois there and Colin knows about it. This is the comment I have here awaiting “moderation” because it already links to it, well before you posted here:
“January 22, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Not even a listing for “coffee” yet: [link to nic.club whois here]”
:(”
So I double dare you to get even a single .club to show up in the whois over there at nic.club, Jane Doe. 🙂
Will 3 do?
http://whois.nic.club
I think the problem is most likely due to COLLISSION LISTS and RESERVED domains which may be the issue you are having with your searches.
—-
.CLUB Registry WHOIS Data
Search Criteria: Domain Name equal to COFFEE.CLUB
Domain Name: COFFEE.CLUB
Domain ID: D978218-CLUB
Sponsoring Registrar: GoDaddy.com, Inc.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar URL(registration services): whois.godaddy.com
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant Contact ID: CR181772965
Registrant Contact Name: Registration Private
Registrant Contact Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Contact Address1: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Contact Address2: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
—-
.CLUB Registry WHOIS Data
Search Criteria: Domain Name equal to SUCCUBUS.CLUB
Domain Name: SUCCUBUS.CLUB
Domain ID: D892753-CLUB
Sponsoring Registrar: Name.com
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 625
Registrar URL(registration services): http://www.name.com
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant Contact ID: NECWP84836HUFW16
Registrant Contact Name: Whois Agent
Registrant Contact Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Registrant Contact Address1: PO Box 639
Registrant Contact Address2:
—-
.CLUB Registry WHOIS Data
Search Criteria: Domain Name equal to SYDNEY.CLUB
Domain Name: SYDNEY.CLUB
Domain ID: D477996-CLUB
Sponsoring Registrar: DOTCLUB DOMAINS, LLC Holding Account
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2222233
Registrar URL(registration services): http://www.dotclub.com
Domain Status: inactive
Registrant Contact ID: NICCONTACT1
Registrant Contact Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Contact Organization: .CLUB Domains, LLC
Registrant Contact Address1: 100 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 1310
Registrant Contact Address2: Suite 1310
Registrant Contact Address3:
Registrant Contact City: Fort Lauderdale
Not even a listing for “coffee” yet: http://whois.nic.club/whoismtld/whois/
🙁
Are you just entering COFFEE?
or are you actually typining in COFFEE.CLUB
Well that helps now. I’m not used to that whois interface not allowing one to just type the word in without bothering with the extension. That is how it has always worked everywhere else I’ve ever seen. .Club is partnered with Neustar, and it is clearly the tried and true Neustar whois interface that’s been around for I guess almost 13 years or more now. Check out www . whois . us and www . whois . biz if you are not familiar. The appearance of the .us interface was changed not that long ago, but the .biz one still bears the same general appearance. Okay, looks like it’s game on for whois service then.
John,
You are 100 percent right that simply entering in the word COFFEE should work. We really appreciate the feedback. The fact is that we have been so overwhelmed with technical challenges managing domain collision the tmdb tmch sunrise landrush etc. ICANN did not make this easy.
We do plan on having a smart Whois that can even offer suggestions etc. Our recent acquisition of registered.today was just the beginning and may play a role.
Colin
Colin
This year .com will celebrate its 30th anniversary
You haven’t even hit your first.
You are rocking but unfortunately your success is somewhat being overshadowed when you get lumped into the new gTLD pile, where there is a lot of game playing, chest thumping, over-hyping and the creation unrealistic exceptions by some or many of the registries
Anyone who expected the new G’s to change the internet world in year one, was very misguided
Lol, I replied to Colin before even scrolling down to yours. Yes indeed…
There are some long-term benefits with several select new gTLD’s. A relatively small number will become well known in a few years as known businesses adopt them. The majority of course will not gain traction. The nicer quality .com’s will never be threatened.
Aside from there just being too many tld’s released, it was a mistake to release both singular & plural versions of the same keyword as well as the different verb forms. The example given was .vote and .voting.
Are you “Max Menius”?
Okay, I see that you must be. Saw you all over whois when .US was released.
Hi John – Yes, that’s me.
There are always exceptions in social phenomenon. In this case of new GTLDs, the top 3 out of thousands of new GTLDs (including the future ones) will survive successfully in my humble opinion. They are XYZ, CLUB and WANG as of this day. The names of the top 3 of course may/can change as time passes. It may be interesting to see who will be the top 3 at the end of year 2015.
mmenuis
Allowing singular and plural new gTLD is something I listed years ago as the biggest mistake made by ICANN in the new gTLD program
Definitely.
Hurts businesses.
Hurts consumers.
Helps ICANN raise money?
Hurts registries too.
I like old gTLDs because most people use the .com , .net and .org. In near future people will like to move from old gTLDs to new gTLDs because of the SEO purpose.
Roger is simply not well informed and needs to sink his teeth into this space – hand on. The article says one thing and he says he shares my views which are:
I am not an all out nTLD fan, very selective and only like where the LOTD/ROTD keyword string combination makes sense and is valuable(Brand/SEO). I do not like several senseless ROTD extensions like XYZ and several others (irrespective of how the get their numbers).
Several “biased” articles and studies are being published by both stakeholder communities positioning and jockeying for any advantage exist in these early days..the markets will sort itself out in time to come.
From a brand strategy or online presence strategy POV – I do not recommend a one size fits all approach but there are advantages to good/select nTLDs being deployed possibly in combination with an existing dot COM as well.
Just yesterday Verisign was downgraded by JPMC…with nTLDs being given as a reason or causing a future dent in their bottomline/profits.
You can read my comments and Roger’s response in the main article at Forbes for more details. Funny how an extract of his post causes so much conversation in a Domain Industry related blog and none on a magazine like FORBES. Smart MB!
I read your comment on the Forbes link mash-up – hardly an article – and I totally agree. Unfortunately, the biggest source of resistance to the new Internet reality comes from stubborn acolytes of a glorious past. When domainers are forced to sell their domains on venues such as Sedo with a median BIN of $2k – read the weekly reports – it shows that a lot of domain holders hold onto mediocre portfolios; meanwhile, by rejecting the true opportunities for development in the spectrum of keyword+gTLD, they are shutting the door to the future. BTW, the future started last year.
Some years ago I came across the phrase “besotted acolyte” or “besotted acolytes.” How do we know your position here isn’t just the happy speak and positive confession of a besotted acolyte? I don’t know the answer, but I certainly lean in one direction so far. Won’t most new gTLD’s fall by the wayside?
John they probably won’t fall by the wayside as I believe the operators who do well. will pick up the faltering extensions for pennies on the dollar to possibly get them for free, doing ICANN a favor by making sure the extension resolves. Maybe an ext with 1500 regs can’t sustain that company, but DONUTS can plug them into their system and guarantee those 1500 registrants that their website works.Donuts will get the renewal income.
That does seems it might work as a good idea to avoid a pure and total falling by the wayside, but would still be a practical falling by the wayside for the TLD as a whole and in terms of what I had in mind. The big fish swallows the little fish and cares for the spawn for as long as they survive whether they ever multiply and thrive.
I’m with the crowd that supports the right to have a choice, versus having no choice. For a detailed response consider providing a pointer to a valid profile, it will help you elevate away from ‘troll’ status.
I’m inclined to support choice vs. no choice on principle alone in terms of a prescription for what should be done and should be available to the public, but it’s neither here nor there in terms of why “no land grab” even after a year and prospects for individual TLD success. As for a profile or lack thereof, however, one thing I have on the domain blogs is anything but “troll” status, but quite the opposite for sure, as the many posts associated with my “gravatar” over many months would already prove in spades. In this case I have kept my own reply less provocative and pointed then your own which I responded to, but given the level of your own provocativeness and rhetoric included in your post it was really only fair and reasonable to honestly pose the counter question with a similar sprinkling of spice. Since people often do have good reasons for remaining mostly anonymous, the substance of the posts trumps the form every time, though if anyone does not wish to say much unless they can identify the other party that is certainly their prerogative.
Fasinating how this article completely misses the reality of how the domain market has changed over the last few years. It is no longer a market where .COM is king everywhere. The .COM is the top global TLD but there are many country ccTLDs where .COM is in second place. The landgrab idea is one typically associated with past largescale TLD launches like EU/MOBI/CO. Because the new gTLDs are small by the standards of these previous TLD launches, any grab in a new gTLD would be small. What happened with .BERLIN and its freebie offer was a landgrab.
I’m inclined to agree with Eric Schmidt who declared at Davos this week that the Internet as we know it today is coming to an end. Everything will be connected via the IOT/IOE. Rather than “searching” via the Internet for “property”, “vacations”, etc, you simply connect via all your personalized interfaces — coffee table, TV screen, dashboard, shirt, wrist, mirror, and more — with personalized answers to queries via Voice, Image, Video.
The protocol and architecture of the global communication networks will resemble nothing like what it is today. Maybe domains will not even be necessary in 8-10 yrs. Networks, platforms , interfaces, yes! Apps certainly will be nothing like they are today, as how we access them via the Web, our phones, our tablets.
But I expect another “land grab” will occur soon after the new protocol is launched.
Interesting Jan. 24 article in The Register:
http : // www . theregister . co . uk/2015/01/24/dotcom_is_dead_long_live_dotcom/
“Dot-com is dead. Long live dot-com
Reports of domain king’s death greatly exaggerated”
Re: your comment above.
Provocation is the absence of truth as opposed to the delivery of facts, and nowhere did I state anything untrue. It is sad that the old guard is resorting to sticking to their guns by means of denouncing the open roads the new gTLDs create. As I’m neither a naysayer nor an acolyte, the epithet was reserved for precisely those that cry uncle over the introduction of an unlimited supply of keywords they might own, in other gTLDs. I’ve warned through my posts that .com (and .net, .org) sales prices will fall due to the opportunities available for end users to grab a piece of the pie in matching gTLDs. At the same time, the registration numbers, while not spectacular, are spread across 400+ extensions over the course of barely a year. Lastly, I prefer to have discussions with people that while using an avatar or monicker, do point themselves to a background of sorts, such as a web site or portfolio site (instead of a fake LinkedIn like our buddy Mike Jones or whatever that troll’s name is.)
Well, confident assertion notwithstanding, you have invented your own definition of “provocation.” Now I like rhetoric too and tend to use a lot of it myself, it has it’s place, but if one is honest then one should have no trouble acknowledging that rhetoric like “resistance to the new Internet reality comes from stubborn acolytes of a glorious past,” “mediocre portfolios,” “rejecting the true opportunities,” and “shutting the door to the future. BTW, the future started last year” tends to be plainly and understandably “provocative” among any other purpose it may serve. Since I am neither a naysayer nor an acolyte as well, but open-minded, reservedly supportive of the availability of the new gTLD’s while still favoring and holding more confidence in .com and some ccTLD’s, my counter-question with a tiny dose of matching rhetoric also serves as very much an invitation to be persuaded and convinced about the former’s prospects. While it would seem to me that a year is far more than enough to expect more of a “land grab” to be going on by now, nonetheless I’m still open minded to the possibility of improvement and the jury is still out. However, so far I’m still also inclined to agree more with what Rick Schwarz has had to say about the matter and the prospects as compared to the more ardent proponents of the currently more dubious “future” of the total new gTLD herd itself. Like others I’ve also already seen and witnessed .info, .biz, .mobi, etc.
(*Sorry about the misspell there, that’s Rick Schwartz.)