Unsound analysis of what new TLDs will do to the value of .com.
Christopher Mims has just penned a new article for MIT’s Technology Review asking “Will New Top Level Domains End the Rent-Seeking of Domain Name Speculators?”
Let’s take a look at some of Mims’ reasons for why new top level domain names might reduce the amount domainers can charge for .com domains:
Existing top level domains — .com, .org, etc. — have become crowded.
You can make the argument that .com is crowded, despite the massive number of new domains registered every month. But if .com is crowded at 95 million domains, then how is .org crowded at 9 million domains? That means there are 86 million .org domains available that are “worthy” enough to be registered in .com, yet they aren’t registered in .org.
Ever wonder why your favorite Internet service appears to have been named by a toddler with a cold (twitter.com) or a politician fond of spewing folksy word salad (foursquare.com)? Aside from the enhanced trademarkability of weird names, it’s mostly down to the fact that all the good domains — the ones composed of words you might find in the dictionary — have already been purchased by people who don’t plan on doing anything with them beyond filling them with advertising.
Yes, many of these domains are born by scarcity of .com. But these are bad examples because they show that .com is important. Twitter and Foursquare didn’t choose their names because the .com’s were available. They weren’t available. They ended up acquiring these domains from the previous owners.
These companies could always register a “better” domain in .net or .org. They chose not to. So why would having more options increase their chances of choosing something other than .com?
You’d think that typing “insoles” into your browser’s URL bar would take you to a site that might help you find them, but instead you land on a page with a bunch of links.
And where do those links take you? Pages about insoles. So insoles.com helps you find insoles.
But what if you’re just starting a business? Prepare to negotiate with domainers who will charge you a handsome price for whatever site you seek. And you thought the Internet was supposed to be a democratizing force.
Again, if more TLD choice means you don’t have to negotiate with a domainer, then these companies could just as easily pick an available .net, .org, .biz, or .info domain name.
Let’s also not pretend that new TLD registries will offer you common keyword domain names for the typical $10 registration fee.
I get the point that Mims is trying to make: more TLD choice will reduce an “artificial scarcity” of .com domain names. But if you’re going to make this argument you need to address recent history of TLD releases such as .biz and .info.
Nic says
“…purchased by people who don’t plan on doing anything with them beyond filling them with advertising.”
What is wrong with that?
Painful argument.
Kevin Murphy says
I’ve never quite understood the argument that it’s domain scarcity that causes people to come up with meaningless company names.
Look at some huge brands that predate DNS.
What does “Pepsi” mean? Lego? Rolex? Xerox? Kodak?
What’s their excuse?
On the other hand, how many successful offline brands are named after common dictionary words?
I can’t think of many off the top of my head. I guess there’s Shell, but that doesn’t really scream “oil”, does it?
Tim Davids says
what’s the difference if there are multiple advertising links to a subject or a site about one company that does that subject? Its all advertising in the end.
DR.VEGAS says
I’m gonna guess that if Mr.Mims is writing an article for a technology magazine-he probably has’nt a clue about marketing.
Jeremy Leader says
“Aside from the enhanced trademarkability of weird names, it’s mostly down to the fact that all the good domains — the ones composed of words you might find in the dictionary — have already been purchased by people who don’t plan on doing anything with them beyond filling them with advertising.”
This statement has it exactly backwards. Meaningful names are only bought by domainers and filled with ads *because* you can’t easily build a defensible brand on them. Businesses intent on building a brand choose their names *based* on the “enhanced trademarkability of weird names”.
Note that insoles.com has a link on it offering the domain for sale; I suspect that anyone who seriously intended to build a major business on it could afford to buy the name. I doubt it’s the cost of the domain that’s keeping anyone from naming their insole-related business “Insoles”.
Domainer D says
I think that the gTLD concept will be the best thing that has ever happened to .COM. If .COM wasn’t the hands-down indusry leader before (duh!), it sure will be in 2014 when the new silly extensions all go down in flames as did .Museum, .Aero, .Travel, .Coop, .Cat, .Coop, .Biz, and .Mobi.
Watch what happens when the laws of supply and demand kick in when it is suddenly realized by the internet masses that the gTLDs are a huge .Fail and that, if you want to be taken seriously onlne, you need a .COM.
Check out the hilreous 30 second video on the home page of http://www.OceanfrontDomains.Com — it succinctly says it all!
Don’t let those .Com’s expire, guys. Your grandchildren will appreciate your renewal effort.
FarmerJohn says
What a dumb, dumbed-down air biscuit of a (non) article.
My Blue Domains says
What is a Google results page?
A PAGE FULL OF LINKS !!! 🙂
What simplistic reasoning by Christopher Mims .
gaetano marano says
the new TLDs will increase the value of .com
Yosemite Sam says
I agree that .com will only go up in value and that the new tlds will be a gigantic .failure