According to a study conducted by World Trademark Review (WTR) magazine found that of those brands planning to apply to run a new generic top-level domain (gTLD), 81% plan on making their gTLD their master brand.
I think most in the domain industry believe that if global brands apply for their own gTLD they would still use their .com as their main internet presence.
However if this study is correct you might see Apple promote .Apple instead of Apple.com.
If hundreds of global brands go in this direction it might help the surfers gain a quick understanding of new gTLD’s which most of us think will have a large learning curve.
WTR’s survey found that an 54% global brands responded “Yes”, “It’s likely” or “Maybe” when asked whether their company/client would apply for a new gTLD.
“Uncovering such a significant figure is a great surprise,” said Adam Smith, the WTR reporter who designed the survey to reveal how industry is strategising around the new gTLD programme. “It is especially fascinating given industry’s reticence on the topic. Although I have spoken to many corporate figures over the years I have been covering the issue of new gTLDs, none have said anything about their intentions for when the new gTLD programme goes live. But now we know that a great many corporations want their own branded internet empire.”
WTR found that 57% consider new gTLDs a ‘valuable opportunity’.”
WTR found of those who raised concerns, 76% thought that new gTLDs would be “confusing to consumers”.
I interpreted the results differently: of those companies that might get their own TLD, 81% would make it their brand name. i.e. .canon instead of .copiers
confusing to users is an understatement.
So I could go after apple.com arguing that “they’re not using it” 😉
Tim
I know your kidding, they aren’t going to stop using their .com but I read the study as saying that they will start promoting .apple in their ads rather than apple.com
Of course Andrew reads it different and the full study is not yet published
so what if apple gets the TLD .apple, then what would they use for their overall homepage? http://www.homepage.apple? i think it would make sense for companies to use .com as a portal for their main site and then instead of subdomains use their own tld for each product such as Apple.com for main site then iPhone.apple for the iPhone, MacBookAir.apple for that product, etc. Best Buy could have BestBuy.com as their main site and then videogames.bestbuy for those products and so on.
At a recent Washington, DC meeting of ICANN’s Business Constituency a panel of trademark attorneys reported that most of their corporate clients who had looked at .brand applications had decided not yo go forward at this time, in substantial part because of concerns about their rights under the currently proposed registry agreement between ICANN and all new gTLD registries — but also in some cases because their product brands have much more meaning with consumers than the company name.
That said, I’d expect any major company that invests the $1 million-plus that’s really required to apply for, operate, and promote a new registry to treat it as a major re-branding opportunity and to migrate their online activities to the new registry.
End of the .com bubble ?
ICANN should be very, very careful before they consider allowing .brands
If brands to the right of the dot become to be perceived as superior, this will force smaller brands to move to the right of the .dot imposing disproportionate costs just to enjoy the same level of branding with in the DNS.
The success of the Internet is derived from the efficiencies afforded by being able to reach an unfathomable number of people for $10 a year + Hosting.
The people pushing ICANN to award advantage to a Super league of the economically advantaged, should think very carefully before proposing making such fundamental change to such a successful system. This cost is likely to prohibitive to startups and cause massive additional costs throughout every sector of commerce.
*fundamental change
GPM
ICANN has been considering allowing .brands for a couple of years.
This is a done deal, as only the final guide book, comment period and vote stands in the way.
The whole process including remaining debate should be wrapped up at the ICANN San Francisco meeting scheduled for March 2011.
For better or worse its coming.
I doubt it.
.apple is going to confuse people. Especially when people start seeing
.pfizer
.microsoft
.yahoo
.samsung
etc etc.
The .com on the other hand is universal in USA and top companies have their brand.com already.
Always be aware of polls, it all depends on how they formulate the question.
Nr
I guess apple.com might forward to http://www.homepage.apple
Then as you say use domains like iPhone.apple for the iPhone,
MacBookAir.apple or just Mac.Apple for all mac products, itune.apple, iPad.apple etc.
However they would not be subdomains.
They would just be domains with an .apple extension
A subdomain would be iphone.apple.com
This is pretty clear IMHO. When some top brands start using their own TLD many others will do the same. Your own TLD will be seen as the prestige play for obvious reasons and .com then becomes second commercial tier. Then ccTLD growth accelerates more.. So while .com remains the legacy play domainers should realize that change happens, that’s the internet.
Domainers are whistling past the graveyard here.
Everyone else comprehends the meaning of this.
homepage.apple does not seem as powerful of a brand as apple.com. what if apple used homepage.apple and then what if microsoft decides to use home.microsoft as their main site and ford decides to use visit.ford as their main site and starbucks decides to use drink.starbucks as theirs? nobody would know how to find a main company site for any company if there is not one standard.
MHB – This is a done deal, as only the final guide book, comment period and vote stands in the way.
It is very difficult to see how the ICANN board can responsibly sanction .brands
The Vertical Integration Working Group discussions were very illuminating. In over six months and in over 6000 emails they were unable to reach consensus on an issue which has the potential to introduce much smaller externalities for innocent third parties.
Vertical Integration was also originally presented to the community by the GNSO as non issue/done deal.
Unless there has been some fundamental changes in the thinking that underpins the Draft Application Guide books it’s difficult to imagine how the next iteration will be anything like ready for producing an equitable mechanism to introduce new gTLDs.
It may cause some confusion for the public, but really only works for big companies that are big well known brands, who can afford it. Like .apple, .coke, .msn, .ibm and so on.
Seems like a bit of a novelty, and each can only be used by ONE company, so how does it replace .com or other extensions?
I think many of these companies will still want to own the .com or country code of their company name.
If they ever are able to offer the registration of any word to the right of the . then that could be a game changer.
Maybe these can be compared to novelty telephone numbers, where the numbers refer to letters that spell a company related word.
Even telphone numbers have to have some organization, you just can’t make up your own. They have country codes, area codes, and three number prefixes related to cities and zones.
This is great news for all domainers for the simple reason that anything that raises the cost of doing business in this industry potentially raises the value for all. On the other hand, I find it curious that they lumped “Yes” votes with “Maybe” votes. My intuition tells me “Maybe” was a large piece of the pie.
To ANON: domainers have seen other extensions and technologies come out to replace .com, and it hasn’t happened yet.
Everybody since the mid 90’s is used to saying ‘.com’ for most websites, and that’s hard to change.
Many people and businesses have spent many years branding themselves and promoting themselves as “website.com”, so are they all going to rush out and change their web identities?
Probably not, but bigger companies who operate many websites might use their .brand for something.
Not saying it’s impossible to replace .com and other extensions, but look how long phone numbers have been around and continue to be used.
Even after reading tons of articles I still don’t get it. Is the benefit that Google might give preference to .copiers over copiers.com in their index? Or owning xerox.copiers would somehow beat out canon.copiers?
And for brand names, people won’t ever be doing direct nav to mac.apple or other such nonsense like homepage.apple. They’ll be going to apple.com and clicking the Mac section from here to eternity.
There *must* be more to this given the expense involved.
“Then as you say use domains like iPhone.apple for the iPhone,
MacBookAir.apple or just Mac.Apple for all mac products, itune.apple, iPad.apple etc”
So are they also going to pay a million bucks for .mac .ipad .iphone etc etc to protect their brand 🙂
..”a non profit” organization might be tempted to put them up for auction LOL
“There *must* be more to this given the expense involved.”
Nope, just a money grab
Domain Report
That is why the report covered what they call Global Brands
I’m going to go take a nap while my .com’s keep increasing in value. 🙂
It’s so funny how nobody in the world, even developers, understand domains….only real hardcore domainers understand domains, and even then, the hardcore domainer can spend his whole life just studying the nuaces of domains there will still be mysteries that will never be revealed.
The way the human mind works related to domains relative to the how and why is a very complex when taken in the broad context of the millions or billions or reasons someone accessed a domain.
For us to expect big business, end users, developers, Madison Avenue, ICANN, and even politicians to understand domains is a task so grand I don’t know if it can be done.
But some will understand domains enough to eventually come around to understanding the .com is what they need. Mostly this will happen after they have screwed up their brands, marketing efforts, and much more, and then come to the realization that .com is king…..always will be (except for ccTLDs and IDNs).
GPM
Here is my guess, ICANN has been back and forth with hundreds of issues on the various Guidebooks and as the clock gets closer to striking midnight (SF Meeting) you will see ICANN start just making calls on these issues, either giving up completely on the issue (like they did with the terrorism issue) or just making a call on each issue, to get it done and get the guide book out there and bank the expected $100 Million in application fees.
deke +1
even if they did understand what needs to be done (i.e. how to fix dns), it wouldn’t matter… because when it comes to internet engineering making fundamental, core changes is nearly impossible.
this is a comedy of errors. at the brand owners’ expense. i’d love to be selling those new gtlds. it will be ridiculously easy.
Often Imitated But Never Duplicated:
The Public has been TRAINED….
to TRUST >.Com
Corporations were FORCED into .Co
out of fear… (It Means Company,yeah right!)
and they still use .Com
Ignore the BS..
Save your money for ….
.Com,Net.Org
My bet!
They will again spend millions in branding there .brand
Stupidity needs punishment and punishment is coming.
The percentage of typos will also explode. I can just see a tv ad saying “go to camera.canon” and people not beeing able to rember the correct url. People will start typing “camera.com.canon” or “canon.camera” or “canon.camera.com”
Also what happens if you own the gTld .camera and start creating domains like nikon.camera or canon.camera etc.
It’s going to be slaughter and disaster among many companies.
Have heard all the arguments. This .brand is no more than exploitation of trademark holders. Leading brands already have their corporate web address, and to migrate their users over to a .brand tld offers very little (if any) benefit. Will yield consumer confusion and added company cost.
The microscopic number of companies wanitng to launch a .generic tld will find quickly it’s not a self-sustaining buisness model. .co was the latest domainer fever. This business model cannot be duplicated over and over before domainers wake up to the reality that there will be no buyers for hundreds of new tld variations. Real life companies are not going to buy in to the tld flavor of the month club.
What’s amusing here is how few really understand what’s happening.
This isn’t “new TLDs”. Nothing that’s happened thusfar (ie- new “domainer” TLDs) short of the introduction of domain names to begin with, exhibits any parity with this. This is a total paradigm shift in the way that corporations identify themselves on the web.
I don’t think vanity TLDs kills .com outright, but it will likely lower the heights of the mountaintop upon which it presently sits and in time, yes, things may actually change. All of this is said in a context that doesn’t give any consideration to the profitability models domainers employ to stay black. Yes, some of them get their faces totally ripped off, or at a minimum, look back on the late 00’s and wish they had sold then…
if the ICANN started to provide .brand, it will be the most confusing one in the internet. As @Landon White told, public trust .com and corporations were forced to .co . Still public are not used to .CO . Only techies are well formed with it.
I agree with @Einstein, “Always be aware of polls, it all depends on how they formulate the question.” This is 100% correct.
I don’t think vanity TLDs kills .com outright, but it will likely lower the heights of the mountaintop upon which it presently sits and in time, yes, things may actually change
As with any asset class prices are fluid and as a consequence can vary considerably based on perceptions at any given point in time.
.brand TLDs are an additional cost not a replacement. Some of the people involved in running the system think they have discovered a way of leveraging the efficiencies the existing system affords over non Internet business models to build themselves revenue streams for little or no innovation.
However much they try to present the Draft Applicant Guide Book as a fait accompli there are still fundamental flaws in the logic underpinning the current thinking.
For example with .brands
Many company’s brands do not align with their “.company” name
Many companies have multiple brands and new gTLDs do not scale well
Some companies like HP will be seriously disadvantaged because their brand can not be represented in the new system unlike their competitors such as .dell and .ibm
The proposed single level system for brands is a less flexible way of representing the real world than current hierarchical system. There can only be one .apple but apple.com apple.de, apple.info etc. can all happily coexist being owned by one or more competing entities.
If and it’s a big if brands to the right of the dot over time become to be perceived as superior or more trust worthy, ICANN will have managed to introduce massive costs to virtually every vertical market around the world.
ICANN should be concerned with providing level playing fields in the DNS rather than allowing the DNS to be manipulated by a handful of contracted parties looking to build revenue streams for their own advantage.
The current thinking underpinning the DAG was drafted by an unreformed GNSO and without those reforms its unlikely even the VI PDP would ever have seen the light of day.
Now those same elements in the GNSO are arguing they have decreed policy and it can not be changed even if it is not the best policy. This is wrong – very wrong. The GNSO should be there to serve the public interest not the private interests of a handful of contracted parties.
Monoplies and internation diversified mismanagement companies like Apple, Microsoft and any other 1000 company can do (put quotes around) anything they want given their marketing budgets – even if the money is spent unwisely.
What this means is “????.Apple” is just another brand – not an extension – good luck further confusing the consumer with yet another set of non.coms.
@Anon — “I don’t think vanity TLDs kills .com outright, but it will likely lower the heights of the mountaintop upon which it presently sits and in time, yes, things may actually change. ”
I see it working in reverse, meaning once the corporations see they are in the valley with these brand extensions, they will see the .com sitting on the mountain tops and return with full vigor to what they always knew and trusted best — the .COM.
@Deke
What you have poetically said is corps will have confused themselves and their customers to the point that they will return to the only one ont he shelf – the .com
I once again I am reminded of how 10 years back how business pushed .cc in advertising on tv, newspapger magazibne & radio in association with their .com and the success of .cc in this regard ultimately became its failure – and now .cc is like like taboo.
Domainers makes me laugh…
As usual, domainers have blinkers on, from under a rock…talking their book & missing the big picture..
They probably were like those who thought AM (radio) would reign supreme…and didn’t see FM coming..
Eventually: top tier cos = .brand
others who can’t afford their own .brand = .com.net/org/etc
Remember: most top tier cos will own BOTH the .brand AND .ccTLD, gTLD
**** They will again spend millions in branding there .brand ***
Doh! All they have to do is change a few letters on the ads.
They still have the .com to redirect to: home.microsoft etc for all the idiots (ie. internet users of today) who are “conditioned” to going to the .com
10 years from now…the domainscape is going to look VERY VERY different.
Guaranteed
@Aggro
“who are “conditioned” to going to the .com”
Yes – conditioned by the US Federal Courts, UDRP and Millions and Millions of $$$ in judgements – including me who was “educated” by the Courts to the tune of $200K years ago in my attempts to open up internet beyond the .com internet space based on constitutional grounds. This is not the forum to educate the utterly naive with the visible website I document those cases.
Best of luck – but I play by the rules set forth by the US Federal courts – and the “tuition” I paid for my “Education”
Well then, I must be an idiot. If I want more info on the new Macbook, I won’t be guessing the domain (macbook.apple or is it apple.laptops, etc.).
I’ll *always* either direct nav to apple.com and click on the Mac tab, or type ‘macbook’ into Google and see Apple’s site or large retailer in the SERP.
After that I don’t care if apple.com redirects to buyamac.apple, apple.computer or any other of that crap because those TLD’s have no practical purpose whatsoever. And no other “idiot” will care either.
Except Aggro of course…
interesting comments
all speculation of course
what we do know is:
.com is working
there’s no reason to think it will stop working (that it will drop in popularity)
as for new, longer tlds… will they be popular?
i think “confusion”, oft used in the comments so far, is the important point
the years have shown much of domainer success relies on confusion, impatience, inability to spell, to type, etc.
these tlds will be confusing, imo
can anyone make an argument they’ll be easier to understand?
they’ll also require more typing
the sensible structure for navigating a hierarchical, “tree-like” network (where users are automatically assumed to rebuke the use of numbers in favour of names… hence we *must* use “semantic” names) should be:
level1.level2.level3
but instead, using the domain name system, we have: level3.level2.level1
which, to avoid typing (assuming users don’t like to type), we can simplify to:
level2.level1 (e.g. widgets.com)
which, as domainers know, some users will simplify to:
level1 (i.e. they just type “widgets”)
i don’t think anyone disagrees with this
but if anyone does let’s hear it
so company XYZ gets their own, easy to remember and easy to type, vanity tld: .xyz
can the user, who we’ll assume (knowing that assumptions are generally unreliable) *exclusively* wants brand XYZ widgets, type “xyz” to get to XYZ’s private internet namespace, *avoiding the system in place today* (assuming the reason why we’re adding tlds is because that system is “not good enough” or “could be better”)?
no. it’s the same system.
so what have we accomplished? not much for the brand owners. the user is exposed to the same system. same root. same verisign game. 100’s of 1000’s of names. brands get lost.
dns does not accept “com.example”
it only accepts “example.com”
so it can’t process “xyz.worldsbestwidgets”
(assuming, very cautiously of course) users *don’t like to type*, and knowing for fact many *cannot type*, they will type “worldsbestwidgets”, “widgets” or a selection from an array of typos and mispellings and phonemes.
so what’s the score?
icann 1
registries 1
registrars 1
.com owners 1
wipo/naf/advisors 1
owners of confusingly similar tlds 1
brand owners 0
users 0
^ Qué? ^
Anon: apologies if that was too cyptic. in sum, most people read english left to right. and the letters furthest left are the most significant. they’re written/typed/read first. and it follows that they tend to get the most attention/care from users who type in the address bar… certainly more than typing punctuation toward the right or the tld at the end… which as many have pointed out is .com “by default”.
the domain name system, unlike a human (except perhaps a C programmer), reads _right to left_.
leave the “m” off “.com” and what do you get?
and don’t forget the “o” either.
of course, this never happens. users exercise great care in typing tlds.
are you typing in the address bar, or is it a search bar built into the browser? (sending you to a search engine, no .tld required)
this is of course irrelevant, because users always know what an address bar is, and they always include a .tld.
enough sarcasm, bring on the new gtlds.