Xconomy.com did an article on the new gtlds and had a focus on Donuts and they got quotes from Richard Tindal a co-founder and COO. Again I think some of the quotes are way off base. Tindal talks about Donuts pricing being higher because it is a superior product. No new gtld currently is superior to .com that is just patently false and this type of stuff is what hurts the new gtlds in discussions and debates imo. Tindal does have the good sense to admit that awareness of the new gtlds is still very low.
Donuts, of course, is bullish on the value of the new domains, more broadly. So much so that its pricing for the new names is two to four times higher than similar domain names ending in the standard-issue .com, .net, and .org. (So, anywhere from $30 to $50 a year for typical new gTLD Web addresses versus around $10 for the legacy names.)
“We’ve priced the product higher quite simply because we think it’s significantly superior,” Tindal says. “We think of this product as three or four times better than the equivalent .com, and at this point, the market is telling us we’re right. They’re paying those higher prices for our superior product.”
Tindal goes on to talk about Google and their purchase of .App. He said he believes Google will accelerate acceptance of the new gtld domains. The only problem with that is .APP is looking like it is going to be very restrictive.
“The more successful Google is with .app, then the more successful we are with our TLDs, because they all reinforce each other—the usage of them and the promotion of them,” Tindal says. “When Google pushes .app, when Amazon pushes .free, it helps our product as well because it sends the message to the entire market and legitimizes them all.”
While $25 million seems like a lot of money, Tindal believes Google will “get tremendous value out of it over the coming years,” likely by doing more than just selling .app Web addresses. “Our expectation is that they’re going to bundle that in some way with tools and other services for the app developer community,” Tindal.
Read the full article on Xconomy
“We’ve priced the product higher quite simply because we think it’s significantly superior,”
Unfortunately, this is not what other people think.
If the continue to concentrate so much what they think instead of what potential clients think they will end up being very disappointed.
Wow, these guys seem a bit desperate now
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Google and Amazon have both basically surrendered vast majority of their applications. And Donuts is pointing to just one new gTLD for each of as proof of potential reinforcement? For all we know they were defensive in nature and might never be developed.
And what about .brand TLDs – weren’t they supposed to be the real leaders in adoption?
I think Donuts is one of the few that have positioned themselves well for the long term but this type of rhetoric does nothing to instill confidence in their company.
The most important piece of information to come out about the new gTLD program to date was the Google’s reps comments about the incompatibility with technology that might not be addressed for another 10 years.
As a supporter of the new GTLD program this revelation has given me pause and I have decided to drop a couple of domains I was on the fence over as I originally acquired in the hopes that there was a chance the cost might lower once the domains became cost effective for them, or at least would remain the same price. Now if “superior product” means “inflated price”, I have to assume if the GTLDs do perform, then donuts will in fact increase price…so more picky I will be.
Strangely enough I will be renewing all the .club I have.
Yup.
The .Community domains have some real potential to be at least on par with city .com domains…I mean, what does .com mean? Commerce, right? The .community tld fits better… Scottsdale.Community (for example) has that warm fuzzy “community” feeling that will resonate with the right branding investment, of course this is all IMHO.
>>I mean, what does .com mean?
.com means everything. Something the world has figured out.
LOL. Well done.
Look at what I’ve been posting on this blog and/or DNW in recent days and you will see how many times I have mentioned the issue of pricing. I even used the phrase “pricing, pricing, pricing” in place of “location, location, location” and remarked how pricing = Marketing 101.
One might be inclined to suggest they are simply being delusional, but that depends on them being honest and believing their own bullspit to begin with. No guarantee of that.
Don’t you often find in life how amazing it can be that some can be highly intelligent and talented while at the same time being unbelievably stupid, and how that is by no means a contradiction?
So either they are lying about what they believe and believing they can sell such bullspit, or they are really delusional.
I’m someone who likes some of the new gTLD’s and feel some of them are quite nice and useful, but anyone can tell you the pricing is too high for success. They shoot themselves in the foot that way for shortsightedness. .Money is one example that I’ve posted about on the blogs recently. Make it “affordable” and I’ll bet traction and popularity could well materialize.
P.S. So they really don’t see how .club has got this right, right in front of their eyes?
.Club have not got it right too..
Just before their launch, they said on Domain Sherpa that they were going to have 100K registrations within the first week of general availability and they also talked about future millions registrations.
Today they are about 40 days away from their first renewal and their number is below 200K with all their money on marketing, conferences, Berkens` help, 50 cent etc
They were horribly wrong with their prediction about number registrations.
Well you have definitely succeeded in changing the subject. But since the topic of discussion is pricing of the new gTLD’s, the facts do indeed prove that they got it right: ntldstats (.) com/tld
And which two only are ahead of them in the #1 and #2 spot? Well let’s see…One that people consider to be a joke and was known for giving the domains away en masse, and another in a foreign language where the population market is around 1.5 billion people. And then there’s the one’s that come after .club.
You’ll need to revise, ada.
Hello MHB,
Donuts Marketing Strategy is get the money up front to make amends for future exodus from the Quasi-Derivative gTLD Saga. When the gTLD leaky boat sinks make sure you are out of the deal.
The parallel between the new gTLDs and the derivatives and CMOs financial debacle are strikingly similar. We continue to classify the new gTLDS as Quasi-Derivatives extensions. We are not kidding you when we say this is a finacial Ponzi game on massive scale. JAS 3/27/15
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)
It depends on your perspective, no? I am not saying the comments are correct (and the use of “superior” is a tad ridiculous), but who is your audience? If it is a portfolio domainer, registering as an investment, then sure. But if you are a small business that does not want to pay $5000+ for a .com that is easy to use, then $35-50 a year may not be terrible. Particularly if that extension says something about your market.
And if that is your play, and you have the portfolio Donuts has, you may not care if your TLD has only 25k – 50k domain names in the first few years.
Relying on what others are going to do to help bolster your TLDs, however, is a fools game. Build your business models for what they are and market them. If you do a good job, over time people will come around.
Everyone is still going to need a web site that consumers are going to go to first – .Less™ is going to be the best one for ROI, when launched. Plus it will be a lot easier to market than most new gTLD’s too.
LOL. I hope you don’t have your money invested in that one.
What prices are we comparing here? A yearly cost of $10 versus $30?
It’s irrelevant – the pricing has to be based on availability pricing. Most names available at $30 are probably registered with an asking price of $1500+ to a domain so they’re actually a huge factor cheaper in he short term.
You’re kidding yourself if you think it’s irrelevant at $30, and apparently so are they. I don’t buy for sales like a normal “domain investor” who frequents these blogs. I buy for the value of use and quality of the domain. I’ve only regged a small number of the new TLD’s and wouldn’t even give the time of day to many at $30 rather than reg ones I already know are available in .com. I could go on about not just my own feelings…
You’re saying that you wouldn’t pay $30 for a name that is available in a .com form? Nor would anyone. That’s not the point I’m making. I’m saying that for $30 get a decent domain that is priced in the stratosphere(or used).
Also, if you’re an outlier, then you’re probably not high on their customer acquisition priority list and an anomaly that is statistically irrelevant. imho.
I’ll be honest with you, hacker, most of what you have written is not exactly the clearest expression of English. I was avoiding saying anything about that before.
You start off by raising $10 vs. $30 yearly. Okay, we know that at $30 yearly one is talking about a new gTLD – unless perhaps only if you are talking about paying full retail at a few places like, where – eNom or NetSol? LOL. It would certainly not seem so. Then you say in the next paragraph, “irrelevant.” So no, I am definitely not saying I would not pay $30 for a .com, although that is certainly true unless it’s a really great .com. I am saying that at $30 yearly, which resembles the pricing I have seen for some of these new TLD’s, that’s too much and I would not pay that except for only the best of the best for a while in the short term, which go quickly and are no longer available.
Everything beyond the word “irrelevant” in your first post is simply not clear English and it remains to be seen what you were even trying to say there. The situation is similar in your second post.
“I’m saying that for $30 get a decent domain that is priced in the stratosphere(or used).” So what are you trying to say there? That I can buy a decent .com normally priced in the stratosphere for only $30? It would hardly seem so. But then again, you did say “or used.” Well what are the only domains that are already “used”? Why, .coms and others that have already been around of course. But how does one get one normally priced in the “stratosphere” for only $30? Well, one doesn’t. However, the new TLD’s have brought about a new situation – you can get an SLD (you know what the SLD is?) for which the pricing is normally in the stratosphere for the .com version, for around $30 per year or more.
So hacker, I suppose you won’t like hearing it, but you have not exactly written what you are trying to say very clearly here, and one can only work with what you wrote. It might help if you were more specific about SLD and TLD in terms of what you have been trying to say.
Now as for me possibly being an outlier, what exactly do *you* mean by that? Whom do they consider to be on their customer priority list? Domainers looking to buy in droves and score if possible by flipping and reselling? Or the general public consisting of businesses and individuals looking to not only buy and register, but actually use the domains? While I participate in domain blogs and certainly like a good sale, I’m really someone who buys as the latter, as a person and business with the intention of using, not a domain investor looking to only score with a domain sale. I have hundreds of .com and other original TLD’s, and have already bought more TLD’s than probably most people and businesses would despite being for the intention of actual use and not merely for flipping. What do you think? The kind of customer they seek, or an outlier?
“So hacker, I suppose you won’t like hearing it, but you have not exactly written what you are trying to say very clearly here, and one can only work with what you wrote.”
I’m quite happy to hear it – I’d rather try and make it clearer than be misunderstood. I actually read it myself afterwards and realized it didn’t make sense. I seem to have managed to deleted some words here or there in error – mostly to make it clear when I was reference the new gtlds vs the .com.
My point was basically that you can’t really compare an available $30 gtld name with the equivalent .com which is (if there is any quality at all) either registered and unavailable or will be held by someone asking for a lot more compensation. In such cases, the $30 gtld may seem like a potentially good investment.
An example would be Internet.Marketing vs InternetMarkting.com
Note: That’s probably a premium gtld but trying to show what I mean by equivalent .com
What I meant to say in the second part was:
You wouldn’t pay $30 for a gtld that was available in the .com form at $10? Nor would anyone because you’d just take the .com! However, if you could pay $30 for a decent/functional gtld for which the .com was priced in the stratosphere. Why wouldn’t you? $30 should not be enough to scare anyone off but volume speculators.
Surprisingly, you actually seemed to get what I was saying (somehow) based on your statement that you wouldn’t pay for a few useful / high quality names and forego most of the “available in .com”.
A true business intent to use doesn’t worry about renewal or acquisition costs in the way a domainer might. A business could spend a significant sum on a quality name for the overall benefit. A renewal difference of $30 vs $10 is meaningless. As long as renewal < net revenue stream due to name it's a non-issue. For some names a renewal in the $1000s could easily be justified in savings to customer acquisition, branding, marketing, etc.
Renewals are issues for domainers because they add up quickly with zero net benefit (except traffic which is 0 for new gtlds unless you engage in traffic arbitrage or similar).
Perhaps you aren't an outlier. I was trying to give you the "I'm not a domainer" benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you're just a domainer in denial – that's not an outlier – it's actually fairly common.
Hello MHB,
Lets clear out all the B.S.
The new gTLDs are destabilizing the DNS. and as a utility are next to useless.
These Quasi-Derivative gTLD (Bridges To Nowhere) should be FREE for all the takers who want to gamble using them.
The new gTLDs are a useless UTILITY , not needed and certainly not in HIGH DEMAND.
So whats up with tacking any value to them at all ? The Ponzi Game continues to reel in suckers.
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)