Tom Conlon understands what new TLDs are all about: nothing.
Popular Science author Tom Conlon published an article today about .eco specifically, but mostly about the challenges any new top level domain faces. The headline of his article is appropriately named “A New Type of Domain Name, A New Waste of Money”.
And for domain names not associated with a trademark, who really cares about anything except “.com”? Sure, a few sites like del.icio.us and last.fm have done OK without it, but more often than not, a site without “.com” on the end has to be repeated a few times before a person understands it. You tack “.com” onto something in an ad, a movie trailer, or a box of cereal, and the public knows what to do with it — no need to muck things up with that ghastly-looking “http://”. And, though not necessarily true, I think there’s this general sense that whoever lays claim to the “.com” version of a domain is the legit owner and everything else is suspect or secondary. How else can you explain all of those cutesy Web 2.0 misspellings of words like “Flicker”? I always kind of figured a company would rather misspell for the sake of a “.com” address than get stuck with the indignity of a “.biz” or “.info” URL
Conlon then gives examples of failing TLDs such as .travel and .museum. Because there’s little chance that typing in company.travel or museumname.meseum will resolve, they have little value.
But his last sentence sums up my point about new TLDs well:
Website owners should simply employ one of the two URL naming conventions the public is already conditioned to recognize: the backslash and subdomain. Why pay money for “yoursite.eco” when you’ve already got “eco.yoursite.com” and “yoursite.com/eco” for free?
After all, why should GE maintain two web sites, one for its company and also GE.eco? That’s redundant, inefficient, and not so great for search rankings, either. It’s the same reason .mobi is being rendered pointless; no one wants to maintain two separate web sites.
But I’m beginning to think two or three new TLDs may be successful. New TLD proponents point out that, by opening up the TLD landscape, someone can come up with an innovative new approach to using domain names. This may well happen, but I haven’t seen this new approach yet. So far people clamoring for new TLDs are just using the TLD as a descriptor, such as .eco and .nyc. That’s not innovative and it’s not necessary. If someone has a truly novel approach to domain names, I’d like to see it.
Namecake says
Thanks for posting. Very interesting article – I used to read Pop Sci a while back – it always had well written and interesting articles. I think he’s spot on here, still i’ve got a feeling quite a few fingers are going to get burned by the vanity extensions.
DR. DOMAIN says
Learned my lesson with .mobi
I only speculate & develop in .com or .net
.net is really more about self defense in that respect.
Foomoo says
There’s a massive innovation staring us all in the face right now: .tel, but many “domainers” seem to have completely missed it and form their opinions based upon emotion (resentment left over from bad investments?), rather than on rational analysis and broader vision.
I question how much technical and cultural understanding the domaining community really has – is it just an amateurish get rich quick scheme?
Andrew Allemann says
Foomoo – yes, .tel is technically the most “innovative” domain. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good investment.
Foomoo says
Of course it isn’t for that reason alone, but if you took the time to fully understand .tel I suspect you might warm to the idea – some of the most ardent skeptics on Namepros.com have.
Anyway my central point was about the community as a whole – I think it’s a sad state of affairs.
Steve M says
“If someone has a truly novel approach to domain names, I’d like to see it.”
… er, um … how about a “telephone-like” use; where all you (can) have is a page of contact information.
Hey; I know! How ’bout calling it “.tel”?
Wouldn’t that be just wonderful for … blah, blah, blah …
Ugh.
Foomoo says
Well believe it or not the Internet is about more than just the web, and telecommunications are an essential part of our economy, culture, and future.
Ugh.
Thomas Lowenhaupt says
Having spent 14 years as a minor league government official here in New York City, I’m aware that local civic communication is, to put it mildly, the pits.
The community district over which our board held sway had 200,000 residents and not a single TV or radio station, nor a daily newspaper to facilitate local communication. (Weekly papers serve sections of the district.)
So when it came to identifying opportunities or local problems and organize to effect their resolution, we were, and remain, networking-impaired.
The Net might have provided more of a solution, but it essentially escaped unplanned and untamed from a lab with era-changing globalization powers and conquered the world. It helps but could have been so much more.
When asked why we created Connecting.nyc Inc., (the not-for-profit established to acquire and develop the .nyc TLD), I sometimes say it’s because our small businesses need good domain names – short, descriptive, and memorable – that provide identity and say “made in” or “from” New York City.
Other times I explain that they will provide the opportunity to organize our resources so the world might more readily find them.
But the highest hope for .nyc is that it provides the opportunity to rethink the Net, not the whole TCP/IP Net, only the DNS part, and it just might enable residents to better find one another.
Tom Lowenhaupt
P.S. See our website, and link over to our wiki for a lot more on this.
Andrew Allemann says
Thomas,
As part of your cost structure you should acquire nyc.com. Many people will see something.nyc and end up typing in something.nyc.com.
Also, how much have you budgeted and will will you start working with application developers such as Microsoft and email providers to ensure they’ll enable .nyc to work with their applications?
Thomas Lowenhaupt says
Andrew,
NYC.COM is a good service and I suspect it will continue to provide some valuable info to the public. Some years down the the road, as the public get acquainted with the concept of city TLDs, I imagine NYC.COM’s usage will slip a bit. But I suspect they’ll be all over the .nyc TLD by that point.
Best,
Tom
Doemainer says
We are very .com focused (as a society, as domain investors, as marketers, etc.) It is natural. That is the way the Internet started. Yes, it is thriving, but can we really limit our information source of today and of the future to only .com??? Maybe the new tlds aren’t at the tremendous registration numbers of .com (in the 78-80 millions range), but you have to understand that they are competing against consumer knowledge, the history of the Internet, and thus the big elephant in the room, .com.
It is no secret that the Internet is cluttered. Ask yourselves or any end consumer about a Google search with 8 million results in 0.2 seconds. We need an organizational structure of the Internet and one way of doing this is by new tlds. I do agree with Andrew that not all will be super-successful. New tlds need to have a big enough audience that has the desire to become a part of that community. I think no one would have imagined the success of .cat.
Thanks
Domainer
http://www.thedomainscene.com
Ace Ferdinand says
There are over 78,594,621 .com names registered currently. What if you are starting a business and want to be part of the largest market on the planet with your .com website….you might get a good name like 45xyzcleaningproducts.com available or flights-to-europe-cheap.com!
The new TLDs (a lot of them do not make too much sense but there are some good ones like .jobs or .travel) are part of the Internet’s evolution towards a more organized information source. The Internet’s structure will become similar to a bookstore or a library where you look for information by categories or verticals such as .jobs for HR, .travel for travel, and .gov for government related information.
In regards to big corporations having to manage a microsite redirecting to a specific section of their main website, I really don’t think it’s a big deal…if you brand it the right way, it makes sense!
wanna find out about a sales position in a certain company, go to companyname.jobs
wanna travel to Colombia this summer, go to Colombia.travel
wanna find the CIA’s official website, go to CIA.gov (visit http://www.cia.com and you’ll understand where I’m getting at).
It is obvious that when people are used to something, they are reluctant to try new things, we are humans after all….but eventually we will have to start moving towards a different direction than a .com saturated Internet…