Displaying posts tagged under "new tlds"
It has a nice ring to it.
Over the weekend Elliot Silver posted an ad with the headline “Dot Com is Dead” from Minds + Machines. I’ve seen a lot of other blog posts about how new TLD backers are beating the drum that .com is dead. Domainers commenting on the posts then typically say that the idea that .com is dead is ridiculous.
Of course it’s ridiculous. But it’s also exactly what you’d say if you were a new TLD operator.
It sure beats “.Com is the biggest domain, and we hope to siphon off a small bit of future .com registrants, and maybe as a collective all of these new TLDs can take away a bit of .com’s dominance.”
Besides, I don’t think that longer description will fit in a Facebook or Google ad.
Come on, folks. New top level domain backers are selling something. Do they really think .com is dead? Of course not! (Well, there may be a few screwballs, but most understand reality.)
Antony Van Couvering of Minds + Machines stopped by DomainInvesting.com to comment on the story, and noted “…you could hardly expect me to put up an ad that said the opposite…”
Exactly. Don’t think that registries are idiots for pitching that .com is dead. It’s a smart marketing line. If you’re trying to sell an alternative to .com, you create your own marketing narrative.
New TLD registries will need to count on domainers and defensive registrations if they hope to amass a large registration base.
Every new top level domain name applicant I’ve spoken with will swear they aren’t counting on defensive registrations to build their domain base. Even those whose business model depends on companies wanting to make sure people don’t think they .suck.
Many of them also say they don’t want or care about the domain investor’s business.
They’re after end users, they say.
If I were running a new TLD registry I’d say the exact same thing.
But let’s be honest here: if a new TLD operator wants to come anywhere close to the number of registrations that .mobi, .me, .xxx, and any other recently “launched” TLD have, they’re going to need to count on both domainers and defensive registrations.
How many of the 700,000 existing .me domain names resolve to an actual website? How about the other TLDs?
It’s minimal, and the bulk that don’t resolve are reserved by someone for either defensive purposes or for potential future use/resale.
Now, registries want end users to register their domains. They need them to for the long run health of TLD.
But if you hope to have 50,000 or 100,000 domain registrations after one year, you’re going to need to count on speculators and defensive registrations. For some niche domains, you’re going to need this to top even 5,000 or 10,000 registrations.
Unfortunately for registries, domainers won’t chip in as much this time. But if a registry’s business plan has a high number of registrations involved, they better start courting domain investors and promote their sunrise.
So far, most new TLD registries are pricing their domains at a big premium to .com. Will that limit registration numbers?
We’re starting to get a better idea of how new top level domain name registries are going to price domain names. It appears many are taking the .TV approach, essentially pricing out any value domainers can get from registering the domains and selling them (if there is much value to capture to begin with).
We’re also seeing niche domain priced quite high by some registries.
Consider .build, which estimates that “basic” .build domain names will retail for $99.
How many domain registrations can .build realistically expect to get? Is 10,000 registrations a realistic goal?
Depending on its overhead, that wouldn’t be a bad business. That’s about $1 million a year, with perhaps $600,000 going to the registry.
The bogey in all of this is defensive registrations. It’s possible that construction companies will pay $99 to keep their names out of the hands of others. If that’s the case, then the number could be much higher.
What do you think? At $99, how many registrations do you think an industry term like .build will get?
.BlackFriday domain names will soon be available. Will they be useful?
It’s Black Friday in the United States, the day that kicks off the holiday shopping season.
Frank Schilling’s Uniregistry applied to run the .blackfriday top level domain name. It’s possible this domain will be available by Black Friday 2014 despite a very poor priority draw number of 1415.
This is a unique domain in that it is targeted to a short period of time during the year; perhaps one or two weeks.
Here’s how the company describes .blackfriday in its application:
Black Friday is the biggest shopping day of the year in the United States. .BLACKFRIDAY domain names will be among the best labels for businesses hoping to capture the attention of shoppers on this exceptional shopping day after United States Thanksgiving…
…Uniregistry will offer .BLACKFRIDAY as an intuitively relevant top-level domain serving registrants seeking to provide information about sales on the day after United States Thanksgiving.
I see a couple categories for .blackfriday domains. One is existing retailers or brands, the other is “generic” uses such as deals.blackfriday or electronics.blackfriday.
The big question I have for the first category is why Best Buy or Walmart would want a .blackfriday domain such as bestbuy.blackfriday. If you go to any of their sites today, it’s plastered with Black Friday. Come Monday it will focus on Cyber Monday.
Why would you want a different website for Black Friday? It makes little sense to me for retailers to own a separate .blackfriday domain and run a separate website.
Will they defensively register the domain? I bet they will, especially with how some retailers have fought off sites that scoop their Black Friday sales early.
I just don’t see a constructive use for these retailers. It will be interesting to see how this TLD plays out.
Is Merck a community? It’s a murky argument.
An International Chamber of Commerce panelist has issued his rulings in three cases involving the Merck brand. In doing so, he has ruled that companies don’t qualify as communities, at least for new TLD community objections.
The three cases were filed by Merck KGaA against Merck Registry Holdings and MSD Registry Holdings and covered two applications for .merck and one for .merckmsd.
If you’re confused, let me clear things up a bit.
Merck & Co, which is essentially the latter two entities above, was formerly a U.S. subsidiary of Merck KGaA that was confiscated by the US government during World War I and then established as an independent company. Both companies have territorial rights to the Merck name.
Apparently their brand sharing agreements over the years haven’t been working so well in practice. The two companies are tangled up in court in Germany over brand usage, and even the Merck.com domain name.
When both companies applied for .merck, trouble was brewing. Both filed legal rights objections against each other and are also in court over the new TLD matter.
The entities each filed community objections against each other, but apparently Merck & Co filed its complaints late so they weren’t accepted. Which left Merck KGaA’s three community objections to be decided.
You may be scratching your head as to how a pharma company could claim to be a community.
Well, Merck KGaA claimed that its group of companies, employees, etc. constituted a community.
Merck & Co argued it didn’t. But that’s where things get a bit silly.
You see, one of Merck & Co’s applications that was subject to the proceedings was filed as a community application. Merck & Co had also filed community objections against Merck KGaA (the ones that weren’t accepted). So how is it now claiming that there isn’t a Merck community?
Merck & Co tried to argue that it was a community, but Merck KGaA wasn’t. It argued that it “is composed of a richly diverse group of entities that includes not only [Respondent]’s core businesses, but wide ranging philanthropic endeavours, charitable foundations and leading medical and scientific publications.”
With this in mind, panelist Bernardo M. Cremades determined that both Mercks believe Merck is a community. But the parties don’t get to decide if it’s a community or not:
However, even if the Parties were to agree on an interpretation of the Guidebook, the Expert is not bound by such interpretation. On the contrary, the Expert is the gatekeeper of the Guidebook and must serve as a safety net for the correct interpretation thereof.
Cremades determined it’s not a community in the eyes of the guidebook. If it were, that would open new TLDs up to a lot of gaming:
As the Respondent correctly suggests, the Expert must avoid creating a dangerous precedent that may give rise to abusive community objections in the future. Allowing groups of companies to qualify as valid communities under the Guidebook will create every incentive for potential objectors to incorporate subsidiaries in order to build a synthetic community.