No .Facebook and .Pepsi?

Spokesperson tells AdAge that the company isn’t apply for .Facebook TLD.

According to an article just published by AdAge, you shouldn’t expect Facebook to apply for .Facebook nor should you expect to navigate to .pepsi any time soon.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that AdAge just didn’t talk to the right person within the companies. A Facebook spokesperson told AdAge that the company wasn’t apply for .Facebook, but you never know.

Pepsi shed some light on why it’s not applying for .Pepsi:

Pepsi’s will also remain on the sidelines of the TLD game, according to Shiv Singh, global head of digital at Pepsi. Mr. Singh cited the costs of acquiring and operating a TLD, which carries an initial application fee of $185,000, as well as his belief that consumers’ browsing habits will take years to alter.

“Consumers are always going to think about first going to or before they think about Drink.Pepsi,” Mr. Singh said. “And that’s not going to change anytime soon, and maybe not for a few years.”

He’s right, although what a “few years” is is up for debate. I think many companies are applying precisely because they think behavior might eventually change yet there’s no guarantee they’ll be able to apply for a new TLD in the future.

And it’s also difficult to argue how Pepsi benefits if people go to drink.pepsi instead of

Google plans to apply for a handful of TLDs, according to the article.


  1. says

    Interesting you don’t mention that Google plans to apply for “.. Google’s trademarked TLDs, as well as a handful of new ones,” .. We want to help make this a smooth experience for web users — one that promotes innovation and competition on the internet.”

    I find that much more remarkable than Facebook or Pepsi saying they will not.

  2. Domain Analyst says

    No, of course they won’t apply. Why would they? The gTLD concept is shaping up to be a huge failure, no? Besides, Facebook just spent millions buying FB.Com from the Farmer’s Bureau. Why would they or any Fortune 500 firm, such as Pepsi, want to give up the .COM in which they have so much invested in terms of branding, marketing and advertising. We won’t even discuss the leakage. If any of them ultimately do go and get a gtld, it will be simply to 301 redirect the minimal traffic to their real .com home page.

    Go to to see a great case in point. Watch the URL change in acknowledgement of the worthless alternative tld. The new ones will be no different.

  3. Jp says

    Neither of these brands need to rush in to buy their .brand. They are both famous worldwide brands and nobody else could possible buy the tlds. What’s the rush to dump millions if not billions after the rebranding process? and are already good enough if not better.

    If I were them I’d wait on this tld land rush too, they already have their names reserved, waiting for them anyway. As far as ICANN is concerned ICANN is probably just counting the days until they get to charge FB @ Pepsi their fee.

    Frankly I don’t see how this isn’t ICANN cyber squaring a tld. They control the rights to a an intangible that there is only one potential buyer for.

  4. says

    You raise an interesting point.

    “Of course, it’s entirely possible that AdAge just didn’t talk to the right person within the companies.”

    Recently, somebody else speculated that some .brand gTLD may be contested *by different departments in the same company* due to the lack of communication within large organizations.

    That would be funny if it turns out to be true. Even funnier would be if this happens and both applicants are represented by the same consultant. :)

  5. says

    Just imagine how fast the learning curve will adjust if Google decides to transition to Search.Google from

    Your average american user will be acutely aware that there is a whole lot more than .com – in a big hurry.

  6. says

    @ Tom G – I mention Google in the story. But I think it’s less newsy than Facebook saying no. The assumption all along is that these major brands would apply.

    Question: why would Google switch from to

  7. says

    I agree FB saying no is significant. Also saw the mention of Google after posting. I need to be more thorough before hitting submit – Tend to spew too quickly sometimes.

    As to why Google might switch, I don’t know. They would need to see some value in it. But their spokeswoman quote certainly seems to embrace the whole new tld concept.

    Who knows how many tlds they are going to apply for? She said it is not just their brands. And if Google wants to own a set of high profile generic tlds – .app, .cloud, .search and how many others – how will they want those to function and perform? They probably will want them to serve some useful purpose.

    Facebook has a huge user base, but Google has 2/3 search market share. They have more power to change internet user behavior in that realm than FB. And a greater power to facilitate a paradigm shift in search user tld awareness.

    I’m just asking ‘if’ Google decides to aggressively pursue this, how quickly will internet user perception change.

    ‘promotes innovation and competition on the internet’ is a strong statement from a powerful player, imo.

  8. John Berryhill says

    “Recently, somebody else speculated that some .brand gTLD may be contested *by different departments in the same company* due to the lack of communication within large organizations”

    That’s not an unusual phenomenon. I have always marveled at the spectacle of Yahoo!’s business arm selling PPC feeds to domainers while their policy arm decries PPC-fueled cybersquatting.

  9. Doug C says

    As many people have said already, this is going to be very difficult for ICANN to manage.

    For example, what if both Google and Microsoft apply for .search?

    How does ICANN decide who wins that one?

  10. Jp says

    @Doug C

    There is already a deceive in place for generic tld applications like .search. In the case there is more than one application. The tld goes to an auction, and whoever wants to shellout the most cash will take it home with them. Would be fun to see who would pay more for .search. Would it be google, bing, yahoo or other? They’ve all certainly got enough cash to make that one hell of an auction.

Leave a Reply