PIR’s take is simple but on point.
What is the future of new top level domain names? Is there a tipping point when they go mainstream? Is it just a matter of time? Or, perhaps, they will continue to be sideline players in the domain name ecosystem.
Last week I wrote about Public Interest Registry’s (PIR) annual report. The non-profit operates .org, as well as a handful of new top level domains: .ngo, .ong, and several internationalized domain names.
On the one hand, it’s a lot like Verisign in that promoting the inherent value of legacy top level domains is to its benefit. On the other hand, it made a bet on new top level domains that hasn’t panned out.
.Ngo and .ong have just over 3,000 registrations each. Its internationalized domain names have even fewer.
PIR had big ambitions for new top level domains. And it’s current CEO was the founder of the biggest new TLD company, Donuts.
But like others, PIR has been disappointed with the adoption of new TLDs.
It’s with this background in mind that I found PIR’s take on new top level domains in its report interesting. After providing background on new TLDs and that they have been available for many years, the report states:
It must be noted, however, that relatively few of these new gTLDs have achieved significant market share.
Even amongst the relatively large new gTLDs, a number of these relied on free registrations to grow their base of domains under management (“DUM”). In many cases, as each registration anniversary passes a significant percentage of their base does not renew. Not only does this put pressure on the new registry operators, it also raises doubt about the long-term value of many new top-level domains–which in turn depresses registrations and renewals, further straining the viability of these extensions.
That’s a fair take from a company that bet on new top level domains.
Colin Campbell says
The endusers, the domain investors, and the media for the most part see through all of these shenanigans. Look at .science now. It’s the registrars that dumbfound me. Why they throw out common sense and promote these non-sensical extensions is beyond me. I am a big believer in .com, and the new domain extensions with meaning. I have even bought 500 non .CLUB names in the new extension (.shop, .wiki, .tech and a few others)
Well said by PIR.
Colin
snoopy1267 says
That is laughable coming from .club, your namespace is full of smoke and mirrors, cheap names sold to China and elsewhere to try and make it look like numbers aren’t falling. One look at the sudden ups and downs in the chart at ntldstats and it is all too obvious.
Richard says
The new gTLD program was a lost cause from the get go. No viable business case and a complete lack of proper market research that led to bogus registration projections…There was just not enough demand. That, plus greedy registries that warehoused all the “premium” inventory. Combine these things and you’ll end up with a complete failure. At least ICANN banked $200m in application fees so I guess we know who the real winner is here,
I remember one of the arguments was that “consumers just can’t find any decent .com domains anymore”. Complete bullshit. Just last week a friend of mine asked me if I could help him finding a brand / domain for his new business (hygiene articles). We brainstormed for one hour, wrote 5 names down on a piece of paper, then came up with a favorite. The exact match .com was available. 2 words, 10 letters, $8,99 /year. Immediate access to a worldwide audience. That’s what .com does for you.
DNPric.es says
Not all newTLDs are equal. Those that jingle have more of the future.
Even in conservative Germany seeing now short and catchy .city, .fit … being used in the outdoor advertisements.
snoopy1267 says
Historically Germany has been a country with interest in new tlds. .info did ok there for a time, I would not call it “conservative”.
Alan Built says
Why would you want a .ngo (non government organization) or .ong in spanish, when you can just use .org which covers that and most other languages?
Jovenet Consulting says
Didn’t I read that Google wants to drop apps for they obvious reason that it is just a matter of website responsiveness? I wouldn’t be surprised that they suddenly decide to give more balance to meaning TLDs like .RUGBY (for example) when referring ta a website related to Rugby. That makes sense. When/if it comes, things are different.
snoopy1267 says
This argument might have flied in 2013, today it is done and dusted.
These tlds will not rank any better than anything else and the suggestion that Google might “suddenly decide” to give them a preference is nonsense.
Matt says
Their comments seem more to be addressing the long-term inadvisability of discounting as a growth strategy than being a synopsis of new TLDs overall.