Getting answers to the wrong questions…
ICANN released a report yesterday called “Phase I Assessment of the Competitive Effects Associated with the New gTLD Program”, undertaken by an outside research firm.
I found the report mostly worthless. This is partly because the new TLD program’s focus on increasing choice and competition is based on the wrong premise.
That premise is that there is a lack of good available second level domain names to register.
The reality is there are plenty of good available second level domain names across top level domains. There are great second level strings in .io, .biz, .ws, you name it.
When people say they can’t find a good domain name, it’s because they’re looking for the .com. When I searched for a name for a new site recently, my frustration was all around the .com being taken for my best ideas. In almost all cases, I could register the second level domain name in another top level domain name.
What people are really saying is there is a lack of good available second level .com domain names.
New TLDs don’t change that at all. .Com is what it is.
Will new top level domain names change this question of availability due to substitution over time? That’s the more interesting question.
The researchers tried to get some data around substitution of new TLDs for .com. They rightfully determined they’ll need transaction level data from registrars to determine this.
For example, if someone searches for AustinTexasOnline.com and it’s taken, do they end up registering AustinTexas.online, or do they just pick another .com? If someone searches for GlassesGuru.com and it’s taken, do they register Glasses.Expert, GlassesGuru.site, or Glasses.guru instead? Or do they just look for another .com domain?
The only data the researchers were able to use to look at substitution was macro data on domain name registrations.
The researchers said this shows that perhaps .biz has been affected by new TLDs, but it didn’t see any major changes in other legacy TLDs. It will evaluate renewal rates in the future to see if it can draw any conclusions.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to me in the report was this parenthetical mention:
(At least one registry that we are aware of, .xyz, has offered free registrations.)
That might not have been necessary to include, and it’s actually controversial. .XYZ is embroiled in a lawsuit with Verisign. .XYZ argues it didn’t give away registrations and was paid for them. Verisign argues that .XYZ orchestrated a giveaway and then used the inflated numbers to improve its positioning against .com and somehow damage .com.
Then again, the researchers weren’t able to see any noticeable effect on .com in its research…
Joseph Peterson says
“They rightfully determined they’ll need transaction level data from registrars to determine this.”
Yep. As I mentioned in my DNW article on fallback hierarchies, registrars have the data but don’t analyze it adequately.
“If someone searches for GlassesGuru.com and it’s taken, do they register Glasses.Expert, GlassesGuru.site, or Glasses.guru instead? Or do they just look for another .com domain?”
When it comes to registration workaround preferences, even without transaction-level data, we can measure some behavioral variations between demographics (across languages, nationalities, and keyword-nTLD-focused professions) as well as trends over time. Yes, access to transactional data from registrars would be nice; but the kinds of claims I made in my article at EuropeanDomainCentre.com can (to some degree) be measured / confirmed / refuted without registrant tracking. Some of this could be done now with nTLDs.
Xavier Lemay says
Exactly! We don’t even need .words. .CO .io .XYZ are great .com alternatives! And as far as I know, .com registrations keep growing up.
Jack says
@Xavier I disagree. I think awareness for new “.words” is nearing a tipping point and once it’s reached, they will be very popular, particularly with the younger demographic. They’re catchy, easily understood and offer creative options. The next wave of entrepreneurs will be much more attracted to new TLDs that mean something to their audience (.social, .services, .technology, .events, etc.).
Joseph Peterson says
@Jack,
“they will be very popular, particularly with the younger demographic”
Recently I had a client whose startup project I named using a keyword nTLD. He paid me to come up with the name, and he registered the domain. Nevertheless, he chucked that “.word” domain (purely on his own) and selected a .COM. He told me the nTLD wasn’t “cool”.
How old was my app-designing entrepreneur client? 16 or 17. Still in High School.
Many people seem to take for granted that the younger generation will love these nTLDs. I suppose the idea is that all shiny new people must enjoy all shiny new things.
But shouldn’t we middle-aged folks stop and ask if the kids actually like the new merchandise we’ve concocted? It is hardly self-evident that they do or that they will.
C.S. Watch says
Most here are over 17, but enough of us have a Peter Pan complex to affirm this: kids don’t like work. Anything extra I have to memorize or read is work and an unwelcome time suck. When .com is a foregone conclusion, as it usually is, then that is as cool as is attainable. Said the future. (And having ‘dot.morejunk’ in logos everywhere? Obv TMI, FFS.)
frank schilling says
I think this is where the art and science of naming intersect Andrew.
In a world without new GTLD choices, .com looks like the only “viable” alternative because it has the most inertia and mass. The “lack of good available second level domain names to register”, is an illusion created by lack of a viable challenger.
Enter 500 new extensions and now “span the dot” names like cleaning.services, used.cars and quarter.horse start to look like viable anchors rather than unusual one-off hacks or mis-fits. There is suddenly a whole new version of the “art” in which to express yourself and that breathes new life and interest into naming.
This effect will be amplified in subsequent new GTLD rounds.
The most noticeable effect on .com is how quickly people and investors are latching onto these new alternative endings. 7.9 million new GTLDs have been registered, against 120 million .coms. That’s nearly 6.6% of the base that took .com 30 years to build, in like a year.
I think within 10 years all the other extensions combined will be bigger than .com. That’s a big shift. .COM is still growing and it will continue to be the biggest single string for the foreseeable future, but I would argue that the future no longer belongs to ‘any’ single string. This is a paradigm shift.
Joseph Peterson says
@Frank,
“This is a paradigm shift.”
Replace “is” with “would theoretically be”. At this point, there’s little evidence of that paradigm shift actually happening.
Registration numbers aren’t evidence that nTLDs have breathed “new life and interest into naming”. Only a fraction of those nTLD registrations can be attributed to naming at all, since only a fraction are being used for new online projects. A large chunk of those 7.9 million domains are
(1) Robo-registrations (think .XYZ),
(2) Registry self-registrations (as you at Uniregistry certainly are aware),
(3) Redundant brand protection (mainly for websites built on .COM or dominant ccTLDs),
(4) Domainer speculation (which remains largely uncorroborated by end-user buyer interest).
Personally, I think naming is indeed slightly more interesting with nTLD options; and I’m more eager to see them adopted than the general public seems to be. As a matter of fact, at least 1 naming client has REVERSED my nTLD name recommendation (which he did buy) only to rebrand, on his own initiative, using .COM!
Let me ask, if .NET and .CO aren’t viable challengers, then why should we believe .HORSE and .GURU are?
More significantly, if you believe Quarter.Horse is a viable challenger to QuarterHorse.com, then a brand called “Quarter Horse” will now be obliged to buy both domains or else face, for the first time, a viable online rival. And vice versa. If they’re both viable, then registrants are now being TAXED to buy redundant domains for brand protection or else TAXED to pay more in PPC advertising to compensate for that new viable competitor.
Even if nTLD domains do succeed, the paradigm shift seems to consist mostly of redundant domain names and increased consumer costs. The silver lining is nice, but it’s largely a storm cloud.
Frank Schilling says
I think many of the XYZ registrations are now being renewed by real people with real credit credit cards. Last check shows XYZ climbing back over 900k registrations again, so that’s showing itself not just to be robots. Registry premiums are no different than domainers holding .com inventory. Fees are still paid. So I think my 6.6% ratio is fair. Even without known registry premiums, the ratio is still over 6% in 1 year. Those redundant brand protection sites that you feel make up the balance are getting used (slowly, again it’s only Y1). And quarter.horse will compete against the .com. just like .co and .net do. In any case, registration fees aren’t a tax, they’re rent payments.
Joseph Peterson says
@Frank Schilling,
Tax or rent hike – call it what you like. Either way, many registrants will be charged extra.
Prior to what you call a “paradigm shift”, CumulusGlobal.com was safe with 1 domain. After the nTLDs were released, however, that company felt compelled to pay an additional $1000 to secure Cumulus.Global. $1000 tax? $1000 landlord fee? Does it matter which?
Suppose some other company had launched Cumulus.Global. How viable would they be in the face of an established competitor at CumulusGlobal.com – without full control of their own brand name online? Some AdWords bidding war would ensue Those extra marketing costs get passed on to consumers. Not only that, but navigating the web – even talking about the web – becomes more of a challenge once we must differentiate between “Cumulus Global” (.COM) and “Cumulus Dot Global”.
Where is the new naming opportunity here? I see the same 1 name we had before: Cumulus Global. The only difference is that brands are exposed to more name overlaps.
Displaying an nTLD can be fun, and I’m frequently in favor it; but that’s just the silver lining on a dark cloud of increased cost, confusion, and waste.
Any brand name that can be built on an nTLD could already be built on preexisting TLDs. The nTLDs don’t bring new names into existence; they just multiply instances of preexisting names.
Andrew Allemann says
This is a certainly a possible future, even if not today. But the report can’t measure it and tries to answer the wrong questions.
M. Menius says
The introduction of complete words is part of the paradigm shift because it offers something no longer available in the existing .com pool or with the other legacy tld’s like .biz, .info. The added clarity in the new domains is a unique difference that separates 2014 forward from 2000-2013.
John says
Technically the likes of “biz,” “info” and “net” are really complete words, but your point is made and taken. See what I wrote below. It’s about complete words that people really like and find definitely appealing, and which so much more fully and desirably can go with the subject, which you put as “added clarity.” Can anyone including the most strident naysayer deny it’s hard to match the appeal and quality of something like “Business.Loans” with a legacy TLD for instance?
Joseph Peterson says
@John,
Denied. It’s easy to match the appeal and quality of something like Business.Loans. For instance, BusinessLoans.com matches it quite nicely.
Names are made for ears as well as eyes, remember. How would you pronounce Business.Loans? Answer: “Business Dot Loans”. For in order to differentiate it from other domains, we MUST pronounce the dot. Personally, I prefer self-contained brand names. Inserting the word “dot” makes for an awkward third wheel. It’s ungainly.
Business.Loans is quite nice. With over 2000 nTLD domains under my belt, I’m hardly “the most strident naysayer”. But the “appeal and quality” you point to is arguable. Even if it’s there, it can be matched. Most people believe that. We see their preferences clearly from ongoing registrations and from the domains they choose to display in the URLs of websites.
John says
@Joseph
You are jumping the gun. Before I submitted this post, I even sat here debating whether I even needed to insert a phrase like “except for BusinessLoans.com” and the like, as obviously we more or less all know that BusinessLoans.com is still currently at the pinnacle of desirability and appeal along with something like Business.Loans. I considered that a given which did not even need to be expressed to anyone here, at least should not have. The context of this discussion is “.com alternatives” virtually by definition and as even mentioned by Xavier earlier, and this specific offshoot from what Max Menius wrote also acknowledges that we are talking about what is “no longer available in the existing .com pool” (but clearly it once was available) and “or with the other legacy tld’s like .biz, .info” (but we know by experience that they, i.e. the domain names themselves, frequently, as in present tense, “are” available in TLDs like that now, so Max Menius was indicating at least implicitly that the “something” he was referring to is not merely the domain itself, which often is still available in those other “legacy” TLDs, but rather the whole package of value and desirability that the domain keyword in the right or best TLD or TLDs (if the TLDs even exist) represents.
That is the bigger “something” Max Menius is talking about, and the likes of .net, .biz and .info simply do not provide it even if the domain itself is available now while the .com no longer is. Then along comes a whole new era in the 21st century Internet, and people now and increasingly can finally register, invest in and build a business on something that would have:
• been at the pinnacle of desirability and appeal from the very beginning, and would have been as intuitive as it could possibly be – had it only ever been a real possibility at the dawn of the Internet.
And there is the “rub” so to speak. Had the kind of TLDs that are now becoming available been available from the very beginning, they would have stood at the top of desirability then even if .com also did. But they are available and becoming available now, and some of them are so appealing and so excellent and desirable that they are able to compete with and in some cases also defeat the years head start .com has had in terms of intrinsic appeal.
Now you have stated your personal opinion about the “dot” and the auditory aspect of a domain like “Business.Loans,” and my personal opinion is that I very much disagree with you. Yes for some domain names and TLDs I would feel that way, but not for all, and “Business.Loans” is most definitely an exception. As far as I’m concerned, “Business.Loans” is spectacular both visually and auditorily. The .com is also excellent and desirable in its own way. The two of them stand at the top of value and desirability, both of them tied for #1. In coming years, however, public sentiment may tend to clearly favor the newer version. Perhaps time will tell. .Com has had the head start, but it can only last so long as people become more and more familiar with the new opportunities in Internet naming and branding.
At least you agree “Business.Loans” itself is nice. But it cannot be matched, except only by the current value and appeal of the .com itself.
“Business.Loans” as an example is one of a kind for the subject of “business loans,” sui generis, in a class by itself. That is simply plain to see and undeniable. Anyone who tries to deny it is simply, well – in sheer denial. That doesn’t mean there are no good “business loans” related domain names to use, simply that “Business.Loans” itself cannot be fully matched by any other now except the .com. When you say “We see their preferences clearly from ongoing registrations and from the domains they choose to display in the URLs of websites” you are mistaken and engaging in spin. We see what people are registering and displaying because they are simply using the best domain names they have been able to think of or obtain, period. If they could have something they consider more valuable and desirable they would use that, but that is the reality of things. Only one person or organization at a time can have the one-of-a-kind or two-of-a-kind gTLD treasures that exist as the best of the best for any specific domain name investment. Some of the new gTLDs now take their place beside the .com in terms of *current* value and appeal, while some of the specific domain names in some of the new gTLDs already surpass the .com in terms of *current* value and appeal; moreover, going forward, those that merely match the .com in terms of such value and appeal may also eventually surpass and displace the .com as well.
Joseph Peterson says
@John,
So I’m “engaging in spin” by suggesting that we should look at contemporary registration patters and the domains actually displayed in websites?
Your opinion, however, is pure truth. To wit:
“[T]he new opportunities in Internet naming and branding” represent “a whole new era in the 21st century Internet”. Business.Loans and similar domains “are so appealing and so excellent and desirable”, so “spectacular both visually and auditorily”, sitting “at the top of desirability” that we can infer the future of humanity without recourse to evidence. Exuberance alone suffices as proof. nTLDs “may also eventually surpass and displace the .com as well”, and “public sentiment may tend to clearly favor the newer version”. This prophecy is self-evidently true. As you say: “That is simply plain to see and undeniable. Anyone who tries to deny it is simply, well – in sheer denial.”
No discernible spin.
John says
@Joseph
You’re doing it again, and you’re also doing it dishonestly.
Would you believe – I also sat here briefly debating whether it was even necessary to add a little remark that some of my remarks here were my opinion? But I didn’t feel that should be necessary either given how obvious it was.
However, my opinion as someone who is unlike virtually everyone you meet in these blogs matters. I have stated numerous times before and will again now: I am primarily a domain name user and publisher, not primarily a domain name “investor” or seller. And as someone who is mainly an end user, the fact that this is my honesty conviction and opinion means something, something more than the perspective of a seller. It means exactly what those who are primarily investors and sellers want it to mean when contemplating what is valuable and likely to become more valuable.
Now in the very last sentence you quote from me, you are do so dishonestly and out of context, trying to make it look like “spin” regarding the entire topic when clearly that remark was meant only about the specific domain “Business.Loans” itself and what people say about it and claim to believe about it.
Also, you were dishonest at the very beginning of your comment because you think you can stealthily misrepresent my statement and position as being about the value of “look[ing] at contemporary registration patters and the domains actually displayed” when I did nothing of the sort. Rather, what I clearly did was simply refute your own interpretation of the evidence, personal assessment and “spin” on what may actually be found now when one does look at such things.
Joseph Peterson says
@John,
I respect your opinion even though I partially disagree with it.
But it isn’t helpful to insist that someone is blind for not agreeing with you:
“That is simply plain to see and undeniable. Anyone who tries to deny it is simply, well – in sheer denial.”
Also, it isn’t very nice to call someone dishonest.
In life, people often disagree. Believe it or not, it is possible for such people to converse without calling one another stupid liars. Try it.
John says
@Joseph
Well Joseph, under the circumstances I did like your opening remark here, but naturally as you might expect I would not agree with your overall assessment in what came after that. It seems you have laid it on a tad thick in terms of turning the table and making me out to be the bad guy here, and really there were some ways in which I would say you were not exactly so very nice in my opinion, either.
Nonetheless, in light of your last statement, unpleasant though some of it was, I feel that at this point we may have arrived at a juncture in which we could adopt that often so appealing and “unruffled” state of mind in which we are able to “agree to disagree.” Therefore, I formally extend my willingness and invitation to do just that, and hopefully nothing you say after would be anything for which I would feel the need to engage in further disagreement. 🙂
I could also perhaps say, nice fighting with you just now, let’s adjourn to attend some nice domain conference events and if we feel like it we can always fight some more later.
Joseph Peterson says
@John,
Sure. Happy to disagree – and with no loss of respect for the person I disagree with.
We should all welcome opposing viewpoints. Actually, the best moments are when somebody convinces me I’m wrong because then I learn something.
Problem is, people online – especially domainers, who are the least professional class of people I’ve ever met; and I’m one of them – forget how to disagree in a cordial, collegial manner.
For instance, yesterday I was called a liar, a conspiracy theorist, and a cybersquatter. Plus, I was also told that “somebody will cut your throat like a pig”.
That’s a daily if not hourly routine – has been ever since I began interacting with domainers. My standards for handling disagreements are still calibrated to the offline world of face-to-face human beings – mainly the nuclear Navy. So when people turn off the professionalism, I tend to be a bit scathing. Nothing personal.
steve brady says
Bail.Agency wasn’t registered until 15 days after .Agency entered
General Availability April 30, 2014, now redirects to BailBusters.com,
a seemingly established firm in California. Interesting that the
original registrant is not an outsider to the bail industry or a lead-gen
affiliate, but an actual bailbondsman. Note they aren’t interested in
registering the .co or .io version of their .com Bailbusters, instead moved
quite fast with what will probably be considered the best naming string for the
keyword “bail” across the spectrum. During May 2014, being so fixated on
other extensions like .Zone, the potential for .Agency went and still is being largely ignored. The super singular .Agency domains can be expected to generate higher value than other gTLDs but at a lower volume like .Expert due to scarcity of sensible strings.
Coco3 says
.. and the added meaning to other Languages…. the gtld success is not a question of iIf but a question of When… … take a close look at those recent patents on registrar name suggestions …. everybody wants to be able to suggest .. 🙂
C.S. Watch says
All nTLDs should be regarded as fads which introduce risk. Like a taco shell made out of fried chicken.
For compromising emails between managers and suppliers, for any credit card purchase, for the needs of a high-functioning normal audience which sometimes still types an email address into a Yahoo search bar? For a million practical reasons, the main site has to be a dot-com. This becomes more true as the audience becomes more sophisticated, ie., better able to police risk and less tolerant of companies which introduce it.
“Much chargeable value will be in certification of authenticity and reliability, not in the content. Brand name, identity, and other marks of value will be important; so will security of supply.” Intellectual Value, Esther Dyson, Wired, Issue 3.07, July 1995.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/64084695.jpg
Coco3 says
@CS,
how is .com’s email more secure than any given ngtld ?
C.S. Watch says
“Compromising emails.” ie., Your supplier in a small farm town wants to email you the the news that some meat headed for Chicago has tested a bit high for ecoli, but they leave it to HQ to decide to dump it. They inadvertently send that email to [email protected], instead of [email protected]. Now the equity firm named TA.com has that email, and you fail to stop ecoli from hitting your Chicago franchisees.
Can people memorize the 1000 different TLDs in the ether and then remember which fanciful option you chose for your email suffix? And execute it right in every email? Even with autocorrect? And do they want to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzA55SxedMI
John says
Too contrived a hypothetical scenario that fails.
In the real world, there would already be an established relationship involving email exchanges. That would preclude making such a mistake. That is most especially true if the relationship is just beginning, as there would be not other email but the “new” one. Additionally, a domain like “Ta.co” would be immediately striking and memorable.
C.S. Watch says
You may be a Vulcan touch-typist, but to evidence how pervasive email slip-ups are, just set up wildcard email on one of your dictionary dot-coms. Watch your inbox fill up with life’s rich pageant. HR infighting, patent chat, detailed invoices. All of it NSFW.
John says
A number of good points here. As I’ve said before, I was originally among the new gTLD naysayers.
My perspective is first and foremost as a user and publisher, not as a “domain investor.” However, I still have both perspectives, but the perspective of most who come to these blogs is extremely lopsided by the latter view.
This is most definitely a new era and shift. As has already been touched upon above here, the reason why some of the legacy extensions haven’t taken off is not because the idea of new extensions is unappealing, but merely because the extremely limited menu of those extension are largely unappealing. Introducing the kind of words and acronyms people would really want to have and which really do have some pizzazz and catchiness is the game changer.
And don’t forget, a lot of the new ones are not very appealing either. Doesn’t matter, and no surprise. The relative lack of limitation of options is what makes the difference. As with anything in life, figuratively speaking, some of the new and possible new TLDs are gold, diamonds, silver, precious stones, and others are simply wood, hay, straw, and rubble. The most valuable, desirable and appealing ones stand out just as with everything else in life.
Majesty says
I completely agree with your point. I’ve never seen a author of ANY Blog so adamant about forcing his opinion on others. He’s basing his comments on opinion rather than research and data. The URL “coffee.beans” quickly beat out coffeebeans.com in a matter of a couple of months!!! Do some Google Searching and you might find the article I had read two years ago. A german seo company confirmed that having these new domain extensions does not hurt SEO in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact, if used properly and cleverly, you can quickly compete with the .com counterparts.
Jothan says
It came up on a panel at THE Domain Conference that .COM was essentially free for their first million registrations, from when Internic operated it until Network Solutions (now Verisign) started charging in 1995.
John T O'Farrell says
Not sure that .com being free until 1995 is a relevant point at all.
It was a very different landscape (most businesses were not online) at the time and there was no developed domain name marketplace.
Much of the general public, in much of the 1990s, thought Prodigy or AOL was the internet…if they were even online.
Recall people thinking you had a special skill if you knew how to acquire a domain name.
Sounds like a fact a person hedging on nTLDS would make to try and make a point out of proper context.
C.S. Watch says
Dot-com was “effectively” free all the way up to 2000. (And possibly beyond for better men than I.) NetSol supplied back doors for speculators so that dot-coms could reach a state of inherent property value. (And also broad public ownership. Hoarding by corporate giants in 08/1995 had triggered the pay model.)
The public awareness of the market value of prestigious dot-coms was (and is) a way to get the market to pay for its own fraud control.
The old silverbacks who built this city know that “security of supply” and public reliance on a company’s self-interest (via brand goodwill and their dot-com investment) are the bedrock of healthy, thriving internet commerce.
The 1000 also-ran TLDs do not serve this policy interest…and the consumer market will repudiate them for it.
http://tinyurl.com/3chkqfz
Majesty says
I agree with John. When all these new domains started popping up, I did some thorough research on them and their value, or lack thereof. I ran into an article a German SEO company wrote about this, as they were trying to see if there was any inherent value in these domains. Turns out, there most definitely is!! One example they used was the “coffee.beans” URL. This URL quickly surpassed the coffeebeans.com site in a matter of a couple of months!!! Of course, many factors come into play here, but having a catchy name or a URL thats a perfect keyword search definitely helps. To say or imply that these extensions have no value is indeed close-minded.