New gTLDs are not like candy

There is an ongoing obsession with gTLD numbers, that needs some debunking.

According to several web sites that track the number of gTLD registrations, the total numbers now exceed one million gTLD domains.

That’s like saying that WalMart offers 1,000,000 different types of candy – which is as far from the truth as it gets. More on that later.

Unfortunately, this obsession with numbers comes both from the pro-gTLD crowd, and those who don’t give a rat’s ass about the new gTLDs.

On one hand, we have XYZ raving about its numbers – despite proof that these numbers are the result of a freebie campaign via Network Solutions.

On the other hand, we have posts in an attempt to ridicule a large part of the domain industry, claiming that the one million is unworthy of any mention.

Both statements are at fault, and here’s why.

Obviously, the XYZ claims are to be taken with enough salt to make one’s blood pressure skyrocket. There has been enough analysis on that around the domain blogs.

The claim that one million registrations in a little over 4 months shows some type of trend is quite foolish to adopt.

Despite the lack of any end-user promotion, the gTLDs with broad interest have already begun to reach end users. All it will take now, is the relentless advertorials and “in your face” demonstration of those gTLDs in traditional media.

At a photographers’ gathering yesterday, I enjoyed polling those that are aware of the .photo, .photos and .photography gTLDs, along with the overall expansion of the Internet name space. The BBQ was great too.

More than half of these professionals had switched from a previously long-winded .com to a short, meaningful, keyword rich gTLD. Some kept both the .com and the gTLD going, but switched the branding over to the gTLD, including their business cards and Facebook mini sites.

The gTLDs are not like candy, coming in a variety of flavors. If that were the case, they would all have been under the control of a single entity.

Instead, they are to be treated like different types of food: there is candy, but also fish, pastrami, sweet potatoes, cauliflower, bananas, red wine and peanuts. Not everyone loves every type of food, and not everyone will eat escargot because it’s “trendy.”

It’s all a matter of taste, and taste alone does not generate the numbers expected by those who insist on viewing the gTLDs as the new .com; the latter, includes the XYZ folks.

In a nutshell, gTLDs are industry-specific top level domains that will be adopted and used for their keyword+gTLD and brand potential. Those that cannot see this type of approach will continue to yap about the numbers alone.

The smart approach, is to eat the food you like – not the food that’s on the shelves.

Comments

  1. That is why I skip more than half of the new gTLDs completely.

  2. Kosta – Exactly my point. Can’t ‘catch them all’, even from a domain investor’s standpoint, much more as an end-user.

  3. Leonard Britt says

    The key issue for domain investors is not whether a cool keyword is available in a TLD or even if a few end users are acquiring them from registries for reg fee but whether or not end users are buying them in the aftermarket and whether they are doing so at a price that justifies the acquisition cost, renewals and risk that you don’t sell all domains you acquire. It is too early to conclude that it is anything other than risky to do so with new TLDs. The massive marketing effort by these new registries should increase awareness of the domain space and perhaps in time end users will start to consider non-.COM tlds as worthy of branding on.

  4. It’s all relative. Picking up Broadway.nyc for $20k would be a good investment in my opinion. It could be worth 6 figures in 6 months. But the new gTLDs have to make sense and be memorable. There is a hierarchy in our market place and one who invests needs to understand why a name is worthless or valuable.

    Another problem with the model, of releasing so many gTLDs in short order, is the ability for a new extension to get traction with the public. How will they develop within the consciousness of the public if the extension is oversaturated by other extensions being released weekly? Everyone now can own Gold.this, Gold.that, Just wait long enough and you can own one too. That does not help to create value in something that is becoming all too available. I hope the new gTLDs are adopted by the larger public and over time I think they will be.

    Will the registries weather the coming war of attrition within the domain name space? They had better not spend all their money now and plan for a long future.

  5. More than anything else, I believe this is a GoldRush for cybersquatters. My reviews can be checked here: http://thiseverchanginginternet.blogspot.in/ under the blog piece The Launch of New gTLD domains.

    Would really love some comments there.

  6. Phil Buckingham says

    These new TLD need to have a value prop. 80% simply dont ( and will fail ) and simply wont find investment to market, to gain traction against the entrenched .com. The key is to understand which top and second level domains add value in the new vertical market. Top line numbers of registrations, “whether falsified or not” are a red herring.

Speak Your Mind

*