Comments

1. @Domains says

   April 5, 2013 at 5:30 pm

   Some of the ‘best’ gtlds look like they could get tied up in objections indefinitely.

   I’m seeing more and more that companies selling competing products would not want just one of them to own their category killer keyword to the right of the dot.

   For example, it makes sense that Ralph Lauren would object to someone else owning/running a .polo extension, and that financial companies would object to someone owning/running a .mutualfunds extension.

2. BullS says

   April 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm

   total colossal catastrophic failure

3. Jeff Schneider says

   April 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm

   Hello MHB,

   All of us have the chance , if educated, to make the right moves with the release of confusion causing gTLDs. Future Web initiatives are desperately going to have to be trusted as legitimate destinations for consumers to spend their money.

   With the advent of the new gTLDS being introduced, its effect will severely impact the Search Engine Marketing Sector. According to MIT (Mass. Inst.Tech.) type-In traffic will be expanded rapidly and will be common place. Consumers are very reluctant to change and there are studies to prove that they will avoid doing business on a non-.COM site. This splintering and dividing of the Search Engine Market bodes well for a brilliant future, for Pure Play Generic .COM Profit Centers. M I T foresees Type-Ins, We foresee a seachange shift into .COM Profit Centers.

   Why ? because the .COM Brand is a granfathered legitimate Brand Consumers trust.

   Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tige

4. Michael Berkens says

   April 5, 2013 at 6:38 pm

   Jeff

   You do have a point here

   A lot of people navigate to direct sites using Google something I never understood but yet a ton of people go to Google to go to Facebook.

   It is possible if results start getting screwed because of new gTLD’s or just mass confusion typo traffic could increase as people look for the .com’s

   Yes possible

5. Dave Tyrer says

   April 6, 2013 at 5:20 am

   A few of the objections on the ICANN closed generics forum mention the risks of closed gTLDs having a possible advantage in search results.

   To illustrate, since L’Oreal have stated they will build up to 10,000 websites on the .BEAUTY (closed) domain, the impact on searches for terms like “cosmetics” and “beauty products” may be problematic.

   ———————— Q U O T E

   “We also share the concerns expressed by the government of Australia and Germany in their early warning notices that ‘closed generic’ TLDs will have a ‘negative impact on competition.’ (cited) …By granting a single entity sole dominion over a TLD consisting wholly of a generic term, ICANN will place these entities in a position to gain an unprecedented and unfair advantage in direct navigation and online search…”

   Yahoo! Inc

   ———————— Q U O T E

   “How will the search engines react to a predominance of gTLD’s under the pre-dominance of certain key organisations for example, if they dominate under every domain content regarding the list of goods and services?

   “How in the ‘public interest’ will there be a balanced non-bias representation in the page listings under each search term made in the URL, for good and services pertaining to baby, hair, cloud services, book etc… if exclusive rights are exercised by a predominant Registry?…”

   Kristina Macaulay (a personal comment, though Kristina is a member of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency)

   ——————————–
   I add to these comments that if Google succeeds with their own applications for closed gTLDs, we’ll just have to trust them that their websites won’t be favored in Google search results.

   @ @domains

   Yes, Prudential has objected on the forum to Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC applications for closed registries for .MUTUALFUNDS and .RETIREMENT.

   I’ve published excerpts from about 100 forum comments on the “ICANN Forum” pages at SuperMonopolies.com.

   You can see objections from some big players like Microsoft (who are simultaneously a closed registry applicant), Accor, General Electric, Barnes & Noble, IKEA, Michelin, US Postal Service, AXA, Accor, Allianz, Yves Rocher and many many organizations, associations and groups, large and small, such as the European and International Booksellers Federation – which represents 25,000 booksellers.

6. McGaz says

   April 6, 2013 at 10:34 am

   Jeff,

   You’ve mentioned a few times that the whole gTLD changes will be to the detriment of search engines and the marketing that goes alongside that.

   I completely disagree! At the moment, there will be a fair amount of type in traffic, because the majority of big names will either be on .com or your countries TLD, e.g. .co.uk. If it’s not there then you’ll search. However, search engines have advanced and are making that one box more and more useful. The results are good and so there is less and less reasons to do a type in traffic – unless you know exactly where you’re going.

   If the new gTLDs really take off and there are further batches in the future, then there will no longer be just 2 likely options to guess at and the vast majority of people will simply use the search engine because it is faster and more reliable.

   I do believe that the speed of uptake on the new gTLD’s will need huge internet companies (like Google) to embrace it. Start listing new “right of the dots” here, there and everywhere and people will soon be thinking, what is this? and then what options are there for me?

   .com will always have the highest value, but I’m sure there will be a number of gTLD’s which will have a lot of respect attached to them from the consumer. I also think that they will benefit search engine optimisation because the domain name is a key factor in listings, so countdown.app will come highly for a search for “countdown app”.

   I can only see search engines benefiting and internet marketeers being able to focus more closely on what and how they want to sell.

7. Jeff Schneider says

   April 6, 2013 at 12:27 pm

   @ McGaz interesting name? Birthright name is more convincing to all, not just me,what are you hiding?

   You are mostly way off in your Fundamentally flawed observations above. I will return back to point out the flaws after this statement.

   Turns out the corporate backlash from companies who feel, and rightly so, the gTLDs are master blueprints for Anti-trust actions, has moved their introduction out months and not weeks..

   This perception by many corporations and the A.N.A. are in direct conflict with select legal entities opinions of support. Adversaries of their introduction can see the potential for billions of $ being wasted on this futile attempt to corner traffic by the few at the expense of many.

   The A.N.A. sees the deviciveness ahead with their introduction into the DNS, and they also realize their sole purpose is to destroy Branding. Funny thing is just the opposite will be the results of the gTLDs introduction. This will go down in history as the biggest miscalculation in Advertising History. As Rick Schwartz has said this should be EPIC.

   Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

8. BrandDoctor says

   April 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm

   @McGaz,

   one persuasive point you made was that the new gTLDs will require Google to “embrace” them [to gain traction and thus 1st page placement].

   Given that Google itself is one of the largest gTLD applicants, how likely is it that Google will effectively “embrace” itself? I wonder if there are any parallel behaviors here by Google that would suggest it “embraces” its own properties? (tinge of sarcasm)

   Reread Dave Tryer’s quotes.

9. BrandDoctor says

   April 6, 2013 at 11:48 pm

   To reinforce Jeff’s points (Metal Tiger):

   How many people can recall seeing .TRAVEL, .ASIA, .WS (web search), etc. in 1st page search results? (Those TLDs have existed for years now).

   How many people would ‘click’ on one of those TLDs if it appeared in SERP results next to a .COM or .ORG?

   With 1900 new gTLDs in pending release, there is not enough space on the coveted search page of search results for many new options. Moreover, the longstanding consumer trust for .COM & .ORG is going to be difficult to unseat.

   Some new gTLDs in very limited markets might gain traction, but I predict that most will languish.

10. McGaz says

    April 11, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Jeff – Firstly, my username is not a statement of any kind, just something that it good for me and not often taken. I know that you focus on building your google presence with your signature but, for me, it’s just a username.

    You clearly side with the A.N.A, but I think you’re comparing Apples with Oranges. You’re looking at a world dominated by .com and minimal alternative choices which is where huge domainer fees come in and profitability for cybersquatters.

    Search engine use will continue to be used more and more heavily as more gTLDs are introduced. It’s clear that browsers now use their address bar as a search tool and type-in traffic will reduce. Cybersquatters will find it difficult to profit on these new domains and the UDRP will take down anything dodgy quickly and cheaply – it won’t be worth the cybersquatters’ time and effort. Lets not forget the new rules are MUCH better than the existing rules.

    That’s the future I see, clearly you see another future and there is no point discussing it. We need to wait and see what happens.

    BrandDoctor – When I talk of Google embracing the new gTLDs, there are two ways that it can do that. The first is, as you mentioned, putting up it’s own properties and having people use google.search, map.search, branddoctor.blog, etc.

    It’s obvious that companies are not allowed to use competitive advantage in situations like this and they will list other results.

    What is important, is simply that Google “Advertises” the new gTLDs. It brings them up in the results where they are relevant, e.g. HSBC.bank, NewYorkYankees.baseball, etc and people SEE them, begin to recognise them and then embrace them themselves! If the search engines don’t bother embracing the changes (or worse ignore them), almost every single gTLD will fail.

    Again, since Google has invested in the project, it’s clear that they will embrace it, but not to what degree.

    There will be a whole new world of much more relevant domain addresses for small and large businesses. Those .brands will have extra security (and much better trackable marketing) and will not need to worry about cyber squatting even half of what the A.N.A talk about. Search engines want their results to be accurate and their .brand gTLD WILL come out on top.

    In my opinion, the new gTLDs are good for the internet. It won’t be any good for the domainer business, but for people protecting brands, they will not have anywhere near the troubles that they project. It will be a different game.

    I’ll come back in 2 years if I’m wrong and I’ll eat Jeff’s Metal Tiger hat!

11. Jeff Schneider says

    April 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    @ McGaz

    People who use disguised names are never taken seriously.

    I have 45+ years experiential Marketing Analysis background compared to your ghost signatured opinions you hold no credibility.

    Market Saturation Obsolescence that all Search Engines are experiencing will lead you back here in 2 years. Count on It.

    As for you showing up ? How can anyone trust a ghost to show up?

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

12. McGaz says

    April 12, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    Jeff – You will probably have noticed that it’s quite common for people to not use their real names on the internet. Not everybody wants their entire life profiled on the internet from birth to death. I have nothing to hide – I have an interest in gTLD’s and Google Alerts often send me here, and you’ve often replied to the post. I have not signed up before as I get enough spam in my inbox and so don’t just at every opportunity to give out my email to someone else. My username is nothing more sinister than that.

    I can see that you’re in marketing because you fill the pages of Google with whatever you write. Unfortunately, you use so many buzz words that you’ve put together that what you’re saying is as clear as mud to most people. Should they decide to use our friend Google to find out what you mean, they’ll see 10 pages of results showing your cut and paste message!

    Perhaps I misunderstand, but are you really trying to tell me that putting 1000 new gTLDs onto the internet will make people type in a .com address MORE than before they were released? Where is the logic in that? You’re trying to say that people will be too confused by the search results that they trust their own knowledge that guessing at a .com is a safe bet? and then that cybersquatters will benefit by the increased type in traffic to their typo-domains?

    If that’s what you mean then that’s just insane! Do you realise that the vast majority of internet users are not tech savvy. They may attempt to type in an address… find that it is wrong a few times and soon learn that search engines find the page for them (if they havent already). The new gTLDs will make their guesses more and more wrong, until they almost completely rely on search engines for all but their favourite sites.

    So what will these cyber squatters do then? Do they snap up typo domains across 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 domains to catch traffic – when type-in traffic is crashing to a halt?

    You say that people are against change, but in the world of computers and the internet. They are clearly not!

    Using your own example, the mighty AOL collapsed in just a few years because of changes in behavior. There are many other examples of hugely successful internet companies falling through the floor because they did not keep up with change.

    The use of smart phones and tablets are changing the way people use the internet and, importantly, the web browsers are changing the way people use the internet. That magic address bar combined into a search bar means it’s no extra effort to just type in the name of what you want to see and click the 1st, 2nd or 3rd results.

    I have no interest in any online arguments, or whether you think an anonymous posters opinion holds any weight (Personally, content is the most important for me).

    I know that I will continue to follow the gTLDs for another year or two and, since you will too, I’m sure we’ll meet again on these forums. Should you wish to really explain your reasoning why you think what you do. I’m sure people would appreciate it. Set-up a blog page or something which explains it and then you might get more people taking notice. I just don’t think the buzz words are going to attract enough attention.

    McGaz 🙂

13. Jeff Schneider says

    April 12, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    I will not respond to Ghosts

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

14. Owen Frager says

    April 12, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    I can vouch for McGaz. What he says is right.