The Donuts Inc. registry has just announced it will begin of the Sunrise period for 9 new gTLDs on October 29, 2013.
The TLDs are:
.CAMERA
.CLOTHING
.EQUIPMENT
.GURU
.HOLDINGS
.LIGHTING
.SINGLES
.VENTURES
.VOYAGE
The Sunrise for each of the gTLDs will last 60 days, meaning that Landrush will most likely start right after the new year, in January 2014.
Only trademark holders with a valid signed mark data (SMD) file issued by the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) can apply for an exact match domain name during sunrise.
Key-systems.net has already updated its chart of new the gTLD roll out
I don’t get it. Sorry. I just must be stupid and missing something. But I truly don’t get it.
.Camera?
Really?
I don’t understand any of them and I see them so limited. Sunrise and Sunset may look the same.
Sorry, I really don’t see where this train goes that becomes meaningful.
all incredibly Crappy…seriously.
i’m sure people are lining up for these.
With these extensions .crap would look nice.
I’m not a domain maven, so I guess that’s why I don’t get it. For example: .ventures (risky? sports? startup? realestate? boudoir? getaway? VIP? nightclub? stupid? space?) (Really?)
Have to admit I can’t see this, except maybe for the big brands. Also I don’t see how the right of the dot will work w/Google’s evolving search algorithms, which now have over 55 signals, data sets, with significant weight on “local”, “relevant” (i.e, personal), “mobile”, “social”.
I get the Internet of Things, Robotics, Genomics, Open Source, Social Media Optimization, Sensing, Wearables, but I don’t see how the gTLDS will provide a “superior user experience”. (Again, I ain’t a domain expert, by any means). More power to those who do get it, and may they benefit for foresight.
What do I know? I just create products. Some, good. Some, not so. Some, Meh. I hope to create better and better. So.whatever.
Guys
I’m the 1st to say there will be winners and a lot of losers
Not all will be successful and just like domain names there are a bunch of extensions I don’t get and would not have plunked down $185K + fees and expenses to chase after
something I don’t get:
I don’t get why someone would buy ebet.com for $1,355,000 if they could buy e.bet for $135. I DO get why someone would SELL ebet.com for $1,355,000 when they know that .bet will soon be in the root.
Paul, because there is no guarantee that e.bet is going to be viable or even recognizable.
It has a better chance to cause confusion and that can be costly.
I would advise them to get e.bet too. But only as a defensive registration.
btw, only got $1.35MM 😉
And as far as the root, if an extension has any degree of success it will be the .com owner as one of the big winners. Because of that confusion. It is already happening with other extensions so it is not theory.
Rick, something else I get:
Lets call the total amount of traffic on the internet “the pie”. Before .bet goes in the root, .com has X% of the pie, and .bet has 0%, after .bet is in the root, .com has less than X% of the pie, and .bet has more than 0%. Its zero-sum. The creation of new TLDs does not increase the total amount of traffic on the internet, yet they will get some of it. Where does it come from? From existing TLDs like .com. The new TLDs provide competition to the old TLDs.
IF e.bet’s existence provides net traffic to ebet.com, then you should of held on to ebet.com, as its value would only increase with the introduction of e.bet. Instead, you took your ebet.com chips off the table. Yes, I put a big.bet on the fact (imo) that the NET traffic transfer is to new TLDs like .bet from old TLDs like .com, not the other way.
Using Frank’s analogy, one new TLD is a drop of water thrown on the .com campfire, and many new TLDs are a bucket of water. In my analogy the bucket is a lake. The past is not prolog – especially during the shift that thousands of new TLDs will cause, with many in the hands of leading companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft and a number of other huge brands. Dot com is your father’s TLD.
(btw, if you want e.bet, lmk in PM)
Paul, I don’t see it that way.
I think you have to have content on .whatever to increase the size of the pie. That takes nothing from .com the way I see it. It adds to an existing pie.
I took the $$ because it was the right dollars for that domain. So you to infer that I sold it because I am scared .com will lose value is really absurd. Come on.
Paul, thanks, I will pass on e.bet. I would feel like a cybersquatter at that point. It’s their brand now. I had claim to it because I registered it in 1996. If I took e.bet now, would not be the right thing to do.
@Stahura
One of the weakest reasons to give in support of .whatevers is that Google is doing it too. Google invested in .co and possibly .mobile, and perhaps .biz and .aero. I recall buying more .co because twitter was going to use t.co to do something.
I am one of those that believes that Google only looks so smart because Yahoo, and Microsoft let them. The moment those two Wisden up, and play with domainers, Google will start putting things for sell on their front age, or at least come up with good content.
I have looked at the new gtlds coming, and none looks better than .travel. So, I guess the question is why would any of these new ones do better than .pro, .biz, .travel, etc?
The confusion factor is immense.
If you’ve ever tried to sell a product with multiple models, you can understand why consumers are best not bothered with milquetoast choices.
The pie has already been eaten, sorry. You can’t eat your pie and have it, and you certainly can’t divide it after .com has eaten it.
Paul
I don’t understand this statement
“I don’t get why someone would buy ebet.com for $1,355,000 if they could buy e.bet for $135. ”
So there are 4 applicants for .bet, of course Donuts is one of them, but Donuts has not won the string and may not win the string so how can you make the statement that they could have bought e.bet for $135?
Also where did the $135 number come from?
Since you brought it up are you saying that Donuts is going to allow its one letter new gTLD domains in the string it owns to be simply registered \ and not reserve its one letter domain names?
I’m just confused by the statement.
addendum
Sorry about the errors viz .mobi and front page; they are software, and dictational errors, made typographically, not verbally.
**Using a mobile device here, dictating, and driving.
“Dot com is your father’s TLD.”
And if that is going to be your marketing plan, good luck with that.
.Com is only like 20 years old and could not be served a drink in many states. lol
You have to show the benefits of those extensions listed and if you folks think you are going to do that by peeing on .com, all I can say is it is weak and you may be questioning why you spent the money you did on these.
All I said was “I don’t get it”
So have me understand. None of us do. You have to sell now not throw rocks at the house we all live in. Believe me, that dog won’t hunt. Not at all. So what are we really missing?
Why .camera and not .cam? I think .cam is much more universal regardless of the current objections. Now that does not mean I think .cam takes off or changes the world. But why is .camera better? I don’t get it.
I think that RIck and the others like me who totally agree with his points are defending the “unseen and unknown” future users of these new GTLDs and their businesses against making UNFRUITFUL decisions. No one with integrity will like to show people down the wrong paths. That’s what set’s Rick apart and many more admire him for that. Give us good, viable and factual answers / reasons and we might change our point of view.
I think you’re both kind of right.
Many of Donuts.co gTLDs will be useful, add variety and choice to the internet, and be cool for marketing (e.g. Buy.pizza). I went to a networking event for startups last week and many of them use .co or other funky gTLDs (e.g. Sli.do) because they clearly can’t afford the .com.
I don’t see why many of these new gTLDs can’t be successful without damaging .com. Also, if you look at many of the city-level gTLDs than I imagine any success would inevitably increase the relative value for that country’s ccTLD (e.g. Watches.london vs. Watches.co.uk)
Michael,
My e.bet pricing comment was meant to illustrate that e.bet will cost orders of magnitude less than the $1.35 million ebet.com sold for, no matter which company ends up with the .bet TLD. That is one public benefit competition brings (and its my belief just the prospect of new TLDs is already bringing lower prices in the aftermarket). I chose $135 because that number is 10,000 times less (4 orders of magnitude) than $1.35M. And yes, I predict Donuts will sell e.bet for orders of magnitude less (3? 4?) than ebet.com, should Donuts end up with that TLD. .camera will be launched first, so watch that to see how we’ll treat the rest. And speaking of .camera…
Rick,
.camera is for the tens of thousands of folks in the camera business. Small companies and big companies alike. The small camera shops. Camera publications. Multi-national companies selling camera equipment. Advertising agencies with camera companies as clients. Anyone who wants to be associated with the universally-understood word “camera”.
seattle.camera is more specific, shorter, more memorable, more unique, and less costly, and easier to buy, than buying seattlecamera.com in the aftermarket. lens.camera, equipment.camera, buy.camera, blog.camera, digital.camera, repair.camera, trends.camera, great.camera, luxury.camera, on and on and on. Companies, especially new ones or lesser known brands: why co-brand yourself with “.com” when you are not in the com business? hasselblad.camera says more to the people you are trying to reach than hasselblad.com.
I’m not saying .com does not have mind share with the general public (of the world, not just the US) compared to any other TLD (it does), but I am saying that the word “camera” has more mind-share than “com” *to those in the camera business*. “camera” is more meaningful, more personal, more descriptive, more relevant *to them* and to the people trying to find them. Just as .de has more mind share in Germany than .com, and .au in Australia, for instance. I know you know the value of specific, meaningful words to targeted groups.
what is .cam for? I don’t know, maybe for those with webcams? its not really a word to me. We did not apply for it. Its a bit more generic and less specific than most of the TLDs we applied for. I’m sure it has meaning to some community (including yourself, as you say). I do know it will get some registrations and traffic (even hobbled TLDs like “.travel” do), and .com will get a bit less of both, caused by its existence. I also know it will add just a bit more to the perception change with the general public that there are many fresh new TLDs available.
what is .com for? It has no specific meaning (unlike, for example the words “pizza”, or “tennis” or “fun”). Its more like “online” or “internet”. To me, its for “miscellaneous”.
Sure, I’m not exactly pumping .com. I’m also not dumping .com (anymore). Its not about if com is somehow better than cam or if cam is better than camera or pizza better than travel. Is a hammer better than a screwdriver? is a screwdriver better than a saw?
I see, with thousands of new TLDs coming from the likes of Google, Amazon and a hundred other companies, with 3 million names waiting in just one registrar’s queue, with the insiders I see selling .com names since the TLD reveal, that .com dilution is around the corner. Its not bashing or a marketing ploy – its a prediction. and I don’t believe I’m the only one who sees it, but I wish I was.
(and yea, *maybe* all that insider selling has absolutely nothing to do with new TLDs – as you imply the pending introduction of .bet had nothing to do with your decision to sell ebet.com – but I can tell you that my decision years ago to sell, for example, clear.com had everything to do with the introduction of new TLDs)
either im just unusually stoned from this mornings wake n bake..
or that was a fantastic explanation Paul S.
great overall post.
Paul, that is a better sales way. Thanks!
Here is where we part company
800 number means phone
Street means address.
FM Means Radio
.com means Internet
well just because .com means “internet” doesn’t mean for example that skype doesn’t mean phone now too.
things can share meaning sometimes.. there is a benefit to this many new gTLD’s for consumers. lots of “limited” niches… so many its silly, or another way to put it is nearly UNLIMITED combinations of words.
after the period of confusion people will probably learn by seeing – its not as if you need to take a college course to “learn” that anything can be a TLD and its no longer .com, .net, .org…
its 2013.. people are smart, yes old habits die hard like typing .com but your success with traffic leakage does not necessarily mean the .whatever holders failure. if they fail just because of using a .whatever i’d imagine they were doing a bunch of other things not up to par and probably wernt very creative anyway..
Paul
I still think making a statement that the buyer of ebet.com could have bought e.bet for a nominal amount be it $135 or $3,000 is unfair at least and completely untrue at worst.
If you ask the .Co registry today what the cost of a single letter .Co domain is, they will say seven figures minimum.
So while Donuts may offer that type of pricing in their business plan for single letter new gTLD domains, I can assure you that some new gTLD operators are planning on charging 6 figures for a single letter .something
So while the buyer may have been able to buy an e.bet at some point (I assume e.bet will be on the collision list and have to be reserved for an undetermined amount of time) no one knows what registry will own it or what, it will cost.
For example a huge mega yacht broker just bought Y.co for what I understand was considerable more than $135 and more than $135,000.
Why would they do that when they could have bought Y.boat for Y.Yachts?
As far as new gTLD’s go, in general obviously you know I get it, but I don’t share your overriding enthusiasm for the assure quick success of the program and the imminent dumping of .com domain names for pennies on the dollar.
Personally I have been getting more inquiries in the last month than any other month this year. I am not dunping .com’s and still turning down way more offers than I am accepting.
So I think the talk about the gTLD and the commercials that 1and1.com are running are not just helping create interest in new gTLD’s, but in domain names in general.
A few other points, unless your a domain investor or speculator, people who need a domain for their existing business a new business, or for a site, for an ad campaign, generally need it today.
They can’t wait for 6 months or 1 year or some time in the future to get a domain.
As we know all of the better more popular strings except for the Geo’s are tied up in contention and some in objection and won’t be first to market.
The “most popular strings” going by 1and1.com stats all fall into this category.
After this week we also know that many of the better “premium or Super Premium” domains are going to be tied up by the collision issue and not will be available for another year or more.
Finally again although I do get the new gTLD and do believe there will be some very successful extensions, not all will be, success will depend on the the string and the operator and how much vertical competition there is.
Will .law be successful.
I’m Sure
But will it be as successful as it would have been if there wasn’t also gong to be a .lawyer, .attorney, .legal, .Esq, .abogado (Spanish for lawyer).
No.
Logically and using your reasoning a reasonable portion of adult sites would have moved off of the meaningless .com to the very expressive .XXX.
But as we know only some 26,000 .XXX registrations are going to resolving sites and 90% were registered for defensive purposes.
According to DomainTools.com who tracks .com, .net .org and a few more but not .XXX, there are 275,776 domain names registered with just the word “sex” in them
So comparatively not a great showing.
As far as what does .com mean, well that’s irrelevant.
If At&t back in the day assigned 900 to toll free numbers rather than 800 or assigned 345 for toll free numbers that is what we would all know and all use.
If the .com wasn’t back but .int (for internet) then there would be 110,000,000 .int addresses in the root now
You can’t just erase 20 years of history and behavior with a good argument.
I agree with Paul…great explanation to old-timers!!!
Follow the big money…google, amazon, etc…
Why did Apple get rid of .com on their iphone 5….hmmmm…
Internet changes fast…
dot com is your fathers tld…very true!!!
just like myspace was your fathers space…now it’s facebook
whether u like it or not…big changes are coming…
in the future…traffic from ricksblog.com will leak to ricks.blog
ricksblog.com looks old like your fathers tld
ricks.blog is the new future look
good luck to all
Anunt
Still after all these years its hard to accept advice from a guy who comments using as his ID a picture of a monkey
anunt, google, microsoft and a host of other tech leaders also invested in and sponsored .mobi. with mega businesses like them, even if they lose they win as its a loss they can ‘write off’.
Hi Michael,
Unfortunately what many people are failing to do is to see the scenario play out in their minds. There may be some companies who go the way of the new GTLDs coz’ it sounds good but does anyone see the millions of existing established websites going to anything else but the .COM??? Why should they change their domain when they already have their established domains. “What’s in a name?”. 99% Established online businesses today are on .COMs – what is the reason to change?? Definitely not the hype, which is a very laughable reason. All the enthusiasts fail to see that these millions of websites are NOT GOING ANYWHERE and 20 years down the lane will be more popular and established than today – people follow the trend and there is nothing anyone can do about it – 20 years down the line its very predictable that getting a decent .COM domain will still be high on the list of serious new businesses. Mmm.. 75-100 years down the line, maybe… or maybe there will be no extensions at all, but who of us will be around to say “I TOLD YOU SO”. lol. 🙂
best,
– Anita
@Stahura
After going through your comments, I have identified, at least, four major fallacies, to wit:
1. I believe that you positioned your arguments, including the “pie” imagery, as if domain Registrants or Aftermarket purchasers have only two choices, DOT COM, or then .CAMERA (or other new GTLDS in some cases). In one case, Bet.com or e.Bet. Nothing can be further from the truth. A registrant or buyer in the after market could, for instance choose betcha.com, or greatbets.com, or Casinobets.com, or OnlineBets.com, and so on, instead of eBet.com. They don’t have to consider e.bet as a millionth option. They may not even have .NET or .ORG in their radar. I fully believe that anyone laying out the type of dough Schwartz received for his eBet.com will not settle for anything less than a .COM. Now or ever. I can demonstrate this, but I think it is profound, therefore, unnecessary. (If you disagree, i will respond).
2. The second fallacy, is the fallacy of the abstract; you present Registries and Registrars as unknown quantities. I think every domainer knows what registries and registrars do, and exactly what they are going to do, depending on demand, and market forces. There’s no need to speak about their behavior in the abstract. We know what the nature of the pricing will be on the single letter, or alphabets, or short dictionary words would be. The only limiting factor for them, including Donut, will be acceptance, and demand, or ICANN rules.
3. The third fallacy is that of definition; you are attempting to define Schwartz as a domainer of fright. A domainer that will sell his names because .whatevers are coming. I believe that most intelligent domainers, by now, will not agree with. Schwartz has written profusely about his domain habits, and sales. he has revealed the frequency of his sales, about 1 or 2 a year, I believe he still within that range since the onslaught of the new GTLDs.
4. Finally, there’s the fallacy of numbers. I think you hold the opinion that Quantity of new GTLDs will trump the Quality of DOT COM. Quantity in most cases does not triumph over quality.
On another note, many have tried to give an analogy to the situation ICANN has put everyone in the domain space. Some have likened it to, I don’t know, 800 telephone numbers etc.
I believe it will be like FCC granting thousands of broadcasting licenses for television, not cable channels, but broadcasting licenses, at one time, with a promise of thousands more to come. It will be chaotic, at best. Now, if Registries purchase these broadcast licenses from FCC with intent to sell time slots, with no programming, just the slots, to consumers, so they may compete against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, it will be sheer madness out there. You can take this analogy further, but I will stop as the post is getting too long.
So I guess hell will freeze over before Paul springs for Kevin Ham’s Donuts.com?
Owen
Seems for some readers if anyone in the new gTLD business uses a .com then they are hypocritical so it might be better for them to go with the .co they have used up to now.
You can see some of these type of comments on my post about Google’s registry launching.
http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/11/googles-registry-for-new-gtlds-charleston-road-registry-launches-its-site/
“We see the man when we look at the monkey; we see the monkey when we look at the man!”
You see a monkey every time you look in a mirror…(Not you personally)…lol
It looks like there is a kind of Domain Tasting logic at work with the new gTLDs. Some of the promoters think that people will register because of generic keywords being used for the extensions. The traffic for tasted domains relied on inbound links from other sites, traffic from search engines and most importantly, traffic from people who had remembered the site and from people who expected the site to exist (type-in traffic). But as people forgot about them or realised that the sites no longer existed, the traffic decreased. The development and continual usage by people of sites in TLDs is what drives growth in TLDs. The registries will benefit from registrations but it is very hard to grow usage in a development desert – this is something that .CO found out the hard way. Initially it used a consultancy to provide a “usage” survey of development in .CO ccTLD. However the consultancy did not or could not accurately and properly measure usage in a TLD and the .CO websites parked on Godaddy’s PPC landing page for unused/undeveloped domains were wrongly classified as simply being redirects. Without widespread usage a new TLD quickly falls off the radar.
The percentages argument for new TLDs, (as in if the classic business school projection that if a new TLD gets n % of the .COM registrations it will be doing well) is a very misleading one and I think .PRO used it in some of its ICANN submissions. The reason that gTLDs like .PRO and others failed to take market share away from .COM was simple – brand protection, usage and evolution.
Brand protection registrations are intended to prevent cybersquatting and the brand protection registrations are either pointed to the brand’s main site or not even set up. Though they may appear to be developed sites they are not native TLD sites but rather sites in other TLDs. This kind of thing affects TLDs like .CO (it is “almost” .COM). The percentages of websites pointing to websites in other TLDs is significant and is, perhaps, greater than the percentage of developed .CO websites.
With usage, the argument is even simpler: why set up a site in a TLD of which few have heard?
And the real killer is the evolution argument. That’s more complex and it does offer some hope for a few new gTLDs. However many new gTLDs will end up as casualties of evolution.
The web started out as a largely .COM event but through the early 2000s, the ccTLDs started gaining traction. They localised the web so that local businesses started to use the local ccTLD as “their” TLD. They began to associate with their ccTLD in the way that they did not associate with .COM or the gTLDs.
People didn’t have to remember the extension as they were in that country so real mom and pop business names started being used. Locality based names started being used. The effect on the gTLDs was the first to be seen – sites migrated from the lesser used gTLDs. But after the ccTLDs gained critical mass, they even began to migrate sites from .COM to .ccTLD. Most business is local so the ccTLD is the killer TLD for that kind of website. People don’t have to remember the extension. It is like your area dialing code – you don’t need to give people in the same area the area code when giving them your phone number. It is the right of the dot in action. (Even if the area code is on the left.) Perhaps only the city code new gTLDs will have that kind of effect and they will have the same or similar dynamics to ccTLDs where brands rather than generics will be more important. And there are few things less local than the local doctor, accountant, dentist, engineer, architect and lawyer. These were .PRO’s target market. The ccTLDs effectively took the local professions market away from .PRO and, to some extent, from .COM in those ccTLD dominant countries. That kind of localisation evolution worked well for ccTLDs.
There is a consolidation trend evident in the gTLDs and some ccTLDs at the moment. Domains in the non-core TLDs are being dropped and registrants are concentrating on their .COM and .ccTLD. Some of the forces driving that trend could be economic as in registrants may no longer wish to pay the renewal fees for a domain in a lesser used extension that they never use. Apart from the fear incentive that drives brand protection registrations, it will be difficult to get consumers to switch from the certainties of .COM and .ccTLD to a new and largely unknown TLD.
When faced with confusion in the market, the consumers prefer certainty and .COM and .ccTLD provide that level of certainty. The explosion of new gTLDs is going to create a high level of uncertainty in the minds of the consumers and existing registries and registrars are going to capitalise on that. While some of the larger registrars will add the new gTLDs to their list of available extensions, many will not. The argument will be purely financial – why become a registrar for a TLD that may only sell a few hundred domains in the registrar’s market over a year when it could be selling thousands of .COM domains per month?
There is an element of “if you build it, they will come” about some of the new gTLDs. Domaining and speculation can only exist within a TLD where there is usage and development. They all work together to provide value. But what happens if nobody builds anything in these new gTLDs?
The wildcard for the new gTLDs, especially in the US market is the .US ccTLD. To date, the .COM is the de facto US ccTLD but the confusion over the multitude of new gTLDs could finally spark it into life. And if that happens, it is ‘game over’ for a lot of these new gTLDs.
This is a great discussion. My day job got in the way this week which is why it took a while for me to get back to this interesting (at least to me) thread.
I agree at least a bit with all of you
I believe that:
1) A registrant with a .com will not give up that .com and move to a new TLD, but also there are currently millions of registrants that give up a .com every year nevertheless. Those deletes are currently replaced with other .com registrations, and I believe a portion of those new registrations will instead go to new TLDs once they come online.
2) .com has the predominant mindshare in the US, and to a lesser degree in other countries, but that there are examples (.au and .de) where these country-codes overtook .com after their registration rules were liberalized. I believe this was due to the registrants’ affinity for the new ccTLD.
3) New TLDs will expand the market for domain names.
4) Usage is very important, and that besides usage, marketing is also very important for new TLDs’ success.
5) Some .com names are registered for their existing traffic. And I believe it’s a given that no SLD in any new TLD has any existing traffic.
6) .com names are registered because they have semantic meaning, and for defensive purposes. I believe new TLDs will get some defensive registrations, but not nearly as many as some applicants believe/hope. New TLDs have great semantic content value, and I believe they will be priced so that a good portion of that value accrues to the registrant.
7) There is traffic leakage from .co to .com, since .co is “almost” .com, but to a much lesser extent leakage occurs from .tv, for example, to .com. I also believe there is leakage the other way (from com to co) due to this similarity, but I don’t believe its confusing. “leakage” from .co to .com is decreasing as time goes on. There is absolutely no traffic leakage from any name in any TLD to any other TLD including .com, when for example, that name is used in a Google ad or other link. I don’t believe Donuts will ever buy donuts.com from Kevin, but we may switch to (or register and use) donuts.inc or donuts.domains or some other even more appropriate TLD when they are available. Besides .domains, and .inc (in my particular example), I do believe that the value of donuts.com to Kevin is also diluted with the introduction of .food and .restaurant (for a wider example). Once someone goes to donuts.com intending to go to the Donuts website (or send an email) and sees that the .com is not about domain names, they get the idea and it likely wont happen again – and I doubt if any of that miniscule traffic converts to a donut purchase, sorry Kevin.
8) I understand the analogy to 800 numbers, and the introduction of 888 toll-free number after 800, but I think numbers are much different from names in that they have no meaning or built-up mindshare, so its tough to compare. Every 6 year old kid, especially in the English speaking world but also in other countries, knows what “pizza” means and that its very different from “shoe”, but “304” and “782” – not so much. If you want to use an area code precedent, I believe a better one is what happened when going from one area code (201 was the first one) to 1,000. Were people confused? Maybe for a short time, they may have dialed a wrong number, but after a few years? I doubt it – they got very used to thousands of area codes.
9) I agree that any new TLD registry depending on defensive registrations, names registered for traffic, domainers buying tons of premium names, or huge volume to cover their costs, and not creating “pull” with extensive marketing and tons of usage, and not knowing or skirting the various and extensive ICANN rules, will have a seriously rude awakening. Any registry (with just one, two, or a hundred TLDs) not prepared to spend millions on marketing is nuts – and I don’t mean do-nuts.
I further explain these beliefs below in some specific responses.
Michael,
Bidzos said on the last Verisign call that new TLDs will expand the domain name market. I think he’s right on that, and from what you are saying I think you agree. And yes, it could be that ads like the 1&1 ad increase volume for all registrations, new and old TLDs, not just new TLDs. The subtle difference, I think, between what you, Bidzos and I are saying is: I believe .com will continue to grow, just not as fast as it was growing in the past. I’m not saying, to use your example, any adult names will move from .com to .xxx, I am saying that .xxx does get and will get some part of the new registrations for adult names. I make this prediction about .com due to the addition of, and quality of, the vast new domain name supply soon coming online. I’m saying .com grew at X% in the past, but in the future, its growth will be less than X%. I doubt X goes to zero or negative for them, but, IMO, there is a non-zero chance that it does. I think (not sure), you are saying .com growth will be greater than X% in the future. Bidzos implies that X% growth will be the same as it was, or greater in the future. Time will tell which of us is right on .com growth, but I think all three of us are in agreement on the belief that new TLDs (combined, leaving aside which ones will fail miserably and which ones will be crazy successful, and leaving aside what “fail” and “successful” means) will have huge growth (from zero to some non-zero number).
Re single-letter names, at the one-foot level (a single name), if Donuts does not end up with .bet, I don’t know what some other registry will sell e.bet for, but I do know competition will force them to have lower prices for that one name (waaaay less than a million dollars or even a hundred thousand) vs. the current scenario with many fewer TLDs (even though, IMO “e.bet” is a better name than “ebet.com”, and I understand not everyone agrees with me on that), especially with .casino and .poker and the rest brought to the mix in the near future. Why did a yacht company recently buy Y.co for seven figures? Maybe because .yacht is not out yet and maybe .co didn’t tell them it will be out, maybe the yacht company wants a name now and could not wait till .yacht is out, or maybe they got it for less than they would otherwise have paid because .yacht is on the way. Going back up to the 1,000 foot level – competition and new supply combine for better quality names at lower prices, no matter who gets each TLD, and no matter how much mindshare .com currently has.
I agree with nomenclature.com on the one point where he says, basically, that registrars and registries won’t change their spots… they are out for their own interests. So I see why it seems contradictory for me to say, “we’ll sell e.bet for cheap” when essentially he (and I think you) say “Paul, that’s BS because you can get away with selling it for six figures.” I’ll explain that apparent contradiction.
First, I can tell you Donuts plans on selling domains, not NOT selling them. Sure we’ll reserve a very few for some future sale (across approximately 200 TLDs, and by the way, the majority of the reserve name list is due to ICANN restrictions), and have premium names, but our underlying philosophy is to get ALL these names into the hands of users.
But second, Like Ballmer saying “developers, developers, developers,” I say “users, users, users.” And by users I mean folks who use these names, put them on business cards, use them for email, put up a website, use them in Google ads, etc. Our premium names will, by and large, not be priced at more than $5K per year, and in most cases, way less. That includes single-letter names. I see that that does not seem to be in Donuts interest, so why would we do that? The simple answer is: use. John is right. A name’s use provides value to the other names (sold or not). More use, more value. The semantic value of the TLDs (and SLDs in it) is pretty much fixed. Premium names (high semantic value) are likely to be used, and we do not want to restrict that use. And I mean restrict in any way – by restricting who can get it, restricting which names they can get, making it hard to buy it, making it difficult to use it, or pricing it out of reach. The use of each name, each Google ad or email its used in, or website visit, or Google search result its seen in, is like a micro-advertisement for the TLD. Take that up.co times-square billboard, for example, and multiply by 1,000 or 1,000,000.
Which company made the most money in our industry? Verisign. By far. They are doing a billion dollars per year. How did they do that? They don’t sell any premium names. Use begets demand which begets use.
Due to this use-virtuous-cycle feature of our business, we think that by selling premium names for less (than, for example, what you think we will), we will actually make more money. As long as these premium names are used. So why not give them all away for free, you might ask. If Donuts threw the SLDs off the back of a truck for free, they’ll be “sold” but they’ll likely be put on a shelf by the catcher in an attempt to maximize that one, or thrown in the street (hey, I got it for free), and otherwise not used. So we have to somehow sell and price them so that whoever gets them a) uses them (directly), or b) quickly gets them to folks who will use them (indirectly). There is a tension, we believe, between free and your seven figures, and we think the optimal setting for us is more toward the low end. We are not trying to maximize the extraction of the value of each SLD. We are willing to give that value to users in exchange for their use of the name, or share that value with whoever facilities that usage with the user. In my opinion, selling (or worse, attempting to sell and not selling) e.bet for seven figures is not a good long-term strategy.
Other applicants and existing registries (like .co) are trying to maximize their one TLD. We are trying to maximize all of the new TLDs. At the 10,000 foot level, look at it this way: If some other applicant gets .bet, their e.bet asset only benefits *Donuts* if e.bet sells AND the buyer uses it. The good news to Donuts is that will happen to some degree even if they (the .bet registry) attempt to maximize their .bet TLD by selling e.bet for seven figures. Wait, what? Some other applicant gets .bet yet somehow benefits Donuts? Yes, but while e.bet is *not* sold, or while e.bet is *not used if it is sold*, it does not benefit anyone, but maybe Verisign, or maybe the owner of ebet.com.
We think that usage of names in our .camera helps our .email. Why? Because .camera gets a bit more word out that new TLDs are here, that there are a large number of these TLDs now. When there is just a hammer (“miscellaneous”), a tweezer (“.museum”), and a toothbrush (“.info”), most folks will pick the hammer because it can do many things like pound in that screw, and chip away at that tree, and because a screwdriver and saw are unavailable. When people see that a screwdriver is available (because for example, they see someone using a screwdriver), then I think they’ll “get” that a saw may also be available, and they’ll really get it when they see a toothpick, an allen wrench, a pipe wrench, a feather duster, a pencil, a pen, a drill, a thermometer, a stethoscope, an oscilloscope, and 1,000 others. They won’t use that hammer as much as they used to, especially when every time they pick up the hammer it costs more than picking up the screwdriver.
Besides use, we at Donuts also think marketing is very important – but I’ll save that topic for another day.
Anita,
For at least the last 10 years about 30% of .com names have been deleted every year. None of those approx 30 million names each year are deleted because of new TLDs (because there have not been any, or very few), and none of the remaining 70% “move” to new TLDs. For example, I’m not aware of any .com names that “moved” to .co so I agree with you that absolutely none of the 70% will “move” to new TLDs. But what of the other 30%? Currently they are being replaced with new .com registrations. Yes John, some of those are the same names re-registered for nothing more than their traffic (no semantic value), and new TLDs have no traffic (initially). The question to ask is: how many of those new non-traffic registrations will go to new TLDs and how many will go to .com?
Unless ALL 30 million do not go to new TLDs (all 1,000 new TLDs do not get a single one of those new registrants), PLUS ALL of an *additional* about 10 million new registrations also go to com—then .com will have zero growth. Verisign needs about 40 million NEW registrations just to maintain ZERO growth—30M to replace the deletes from last year and about 10M to match the additional new registrations they did last year.
It’s not about switching an existing registrant from .com to some new TLD, it’s getting a new registrant to a new TLD.
Rick,
I agree, no other TLD will have the same mindshare .com has, but my father remembers when “AM” meant radio, I (like you) remember when “FM” meant radio, and now my kids think “XM” means radio. I remember, and it was not that long ago, when “AOL” meant “Internet” to most of the world’s population. I believe, just as (NNN) NNN-NNNN (numbers separated with parenthesis and dashes) means “telephone”, AAAA.AAAA (words separate by a dot) will mean “internet”. Nothing stays the same. Especially in the long term, which is what Donuts is in for.
It’s been 7 months, and time to re-visit the mind of Paul Stahura, one of the largest operators of the new gTLD Registries, on this epic post of 2013. I don’t think that most domain investors got a chance to see this because of the TRAFFIC Conference in Florida. It’ll be a good idea to re-post it.
incredible.. thanks for posting Paul.
probably one of the longest comments i’ve ever took the time to read on a blog but pretty neat to see along what lines the largest applicant for gTLD’s are thinking..
Rick,
One short story, The ice trade, also known as the frozen water trade, was a 19th-century industry that involving the large-scale harvesting, transport and sale of natural ice for domestic consumption and commercial purposes. Ice was cut from the surface of ponds and streams, then stored in ice houses, before being sent on by ship, barge or railroad to its final destination around the world. No frozen water harvesting company made the transition to manufacturing ice locally. And no Icy manufacturing & distribution company made the transition to making refrigerators. Not one company along the way could figure out how to stay in business and do something new that served the same purpose, keeping the food cold.
Your argument is in support of NEW TLDs but you don’t even realize it because you lack real history. You point to new things and say they will stand the test of time. Take the 800 numbers that were introduced in May 2, 1967. I take it you don’t believe in Zenith numbers anymore? That was the old way to make toll free calls. Your next point; “Street means Address” but street has fun sisters called Avenue, Boulevard, Lane, Road, Drive, Alley, Court, Place etc. that also mean address. And your last point was FM means Radio. However FM was approved in 1961 by the FCC. AM Radio started in the 1920s. Things change over time, why not say “AM means Radio”?
Zenith numbers -> 800 numbers
Street, Avenue, Boulevard are all equally accepted as addresses.
AM Radio -> FM Radio -> Digital Radio (Yes, the FM spectrum will be replaced and retired)
Believing things stay the same is a short-term argument that History always proves wrong.
Brilliant comment Paul, really lays it out there and it’s worth reading more than a few times.
I’ve made a post with my own understanding of the whole equation –
http://www.mwzd.com/domain-names/what-will-win-com-or-cctlds-or-newgtlds/
Though people rooting for either existing gTLDs or newgTLDs might like the conclusions I’ve drawn.
Rick Schwartz
”
Paul, thanks, I will pass on e.bet. I would feel like a cybersquatter at that point. It’s their brand now. I had claim to it because I registered it in 1996. If I took e.bet now, would not be the right thing to do.
”
Haha grey areas are your sweet spot aren’t they Rick? You’re probably on the phone to em now lol
Rick you pretty much exposed yourself on ebid.com not too long ago when you thought you had an accomplice re the ransom letter you and Danny posted on the site to the ebid.net owner.
And the way you handled ebet.com and your previous ransom note on ebid.com to the ebid.net onwer just makes you another form of cyber squatter no matter how much you protest…but, but,
hahah Rick Schwartz has coined a new term again, from pigeon shit domains to now being the first domainer also known as a REVERSE CYBERSQUATTER lol
Very interesting reading all of the perspectives on this article. Unless I am mistaken, the gTLD’s typically have 3 primary/value markets per suffix:
1. Brands
2. Individuals
3. Generics (Subjects & Key Words)
I believe that anything else is largely too vague and is already sufficiently served by historical sites on longer term (probably .com, .net or cctld) domains.
When it comes to the Brands, I firmly believe that trademark sense will play out at the end of the day and few are going to be held to ransom. Even if they are, and they lose a random .whatever, the corporate entities on .com really won’t care less and will see it as a marketing fad.
When it comes to Individuals, a large number will already be using a long-term domain, probably associated with a variety of marketing, social profiles and not least their email address, so these are largely aiming for a vanity market or admittedly, newcomers.
Where I am very interested is the Generics. My Company has a significant vested interest in how the .photography gTLD plays out, as we own and are developing several class leading http://www.SUBJECTphotography.com domains, such as NaturePhotography, SportsPhotography, NewsPhotography, ContemporaryPhotography, AdultPhotography etc.
We believe the combined authority of the name plus the .com, has huge value to the market and our market research has justified this. We have thousands of photographers excited about coming on board. The .photography domains are, like the 9 above, very interesting, but we won’t be investing in them as we believe the .com’s are far more valuable. I also suspect that the key/generic names will attract the highest value, by far in any auctions for .gTLD names. I even suspect that many new registries will have based their application business plan on selling several of the primary keyword.whatever’s for a significant premium to break even their investment. I’m sure sex.camera in the above example has a huge premium for example, yet without owning sexcamera.com, you’d be wait for it…….screwed or over exposed!
Therefore, what I seriously question, is that will anyone buying a .whatever domain feel secure in their substantial investment without also having the keyword(gTLD).com, given it’s familiarity and authority all over the world.
17 years experience, tells me it will increase the value of premium .com sub-domains…
To the new gtld speculators at all levels:
Could I have commanded circumstances with a wish, I know not of any that would have more generally promoted the progress of domain names, They have not only served as advertisements, but they have excited a spirit of inquiry into urls, and a desire to understand the workings of the dns, in places where that spirit and that knowledge were before unknown, for that I thank you.
Steve Mugavero
Fundings.com