200k is a bargain. Does this make geos overpriced
- Thread starter Billy01
- Start date
acheeva
Top Contributor
Local Council Bonanza
Yes; you could imagine local councils around the world "commercializing" the name and $200K is nothing more than the cost of a good party
Yes; you could imagine local councils around the world "commercializing" the name and $200K is nothing more than the cost of a good party
snoopy
Top Contributor
I can imagine some councils signing up, only because councils tend to be keen to waste money and often aren't fully aware of what they are getting into.
Private business some will, personally I think it will be a .co like situation. .google might be cool, but it isn't logical.
iinet will have worse problems in my view compared to an american company. iinet.com.au, .iinet.au, www.iinet, iinet.iinet, .iinet? How the heck are people supposed to find their site with that extension?
payattention
Archived Member
Most people still default to .com - even if a website is .net .org or .info, it's not surprising to hear people add on a .com instead.. adding .london is only going to add more confusion and gives people more reason to stick with .com when visiting websites.
People talk about new generations but they're even stupider than the one that come before it and won't use .london or similar extensions. The path of least resistance is .com and that's not going to change no matter how fancy your extension is.
People talk about new generations but they're even stupider than the one that come before it and won't use .london or similar extensions. The path of least resistance is .com and that's not going to change no matter how fancy your extension is.
Last edited:
snoopy
Top Contributor
Personally use search engines a fair bit to find websites I know the domain for, not sure it is any slower really.
johno69
Top Contributor
I agree. Especially Google's "I'm feeling lucky".
More reason that what? The current status quo?
The argument (I'm not saying this is what you mean, Jonathan) that these new TLDs will make .com stronger doesn't make any sense at all.
Oh and FWIW, .com is only the default for America and a few other countries. In general the local ccTLD is the 'default' extension.
PS - iinet should have bought i.net.au and rebranded years ago. Instead they tried to threaten the bloke into giving it up who rightly resisted. Being the only business in Australia with a single character domain name would have been a nice branding exercise for an internet company IMO
payattention
Archived Member
It's continued to maintain the status quo even with the addition of new extensions, why would .london or any other change it? If people see olympics.london advertised, I think it's pretty likely they'll just append .com to the end of it, browser will return an error and they'll get the SERPS instead if their ISP is dns hijacking (Bigpond for example).
If such extensions won't work for type in traffic (which is likely), why bother using them at all? People couldn't even get oo.co right and went to oo.com instead and that's only 2 letters. Your average surfer doesn't know or understand anything else than the top tier extensions anyway. That lack of understanding transcends all age barriers, it isn't just an old person thing, young people do the exact same thing.
If such extensions won't work for type in traffic (which is likely), why bother using them at all? People couldn't even get oo.co right and went to oo.com instead and that's only 2 letters. Your average surfer doesn't know or understand anything else than the top tier extensions anyway. That lack of understanding transcends all age barriers, it isn't just an old person thing, young people do the exact same thing.
Don't disagree at all. I think the nTLDs will be a complete confused failure from a usage POV. An expense for many businesses (through defensive registrations) and will burn a heap of domainer's cash. The registrars and particularly the registries will clean up though.
My point was they won't actually strengthen the value of the current dominant TLDs as some people argue
payattention
Archived Member
I think it's failure strengthens .com because it reinforces the idea that .com is king. If I owned london.com, my asking price would increase if I knew potential bidders just dropped 200k on .london.
snoopy
Top Contributor
Why would a small news story in the marketing section of the paper be worth 200k?
snoopy
Top Contributor
i.net.au? not sure how that makes sense for them. Wrong tld, wrong keyword, unless they want to be called "i". o.co all over again in my view if they'd decided to use that.
They've got the right domains now I would say.
snoopy
Top Contributor
I don't think it would translate into increased demand. Personally I think new tlds will have a minor negative effect on dominant tlds and a huge negative effect on the other new and rebranded tlds.
Agree
Disagree - too late now but it would have made a great unique brand 5-10 years ago when they looked into it.
Agree
2 out of 3 aint bad.
Don't see the logic- you've just admitted that your biggest and best most likely buyer who presumably has known that the domain london.com has existed for 20 years has just committed to something else.
Surely this translates drop in demand for the domain doesn't it?
And if .london ends up being a nightmare for them, they will be totally burnt by the idea of a new domain and revert back to their london.gov.uk or whatever they used before.
