events It's bad. No worse. It's sad.

[betthelot]

OK imagine you run a domain business and you sell $7.9 million dollars a year worth of domains but it costs you $18 million dollars to operate the business.
What would you do?
Well MMX owners of such names as .work .beer .london .boston decided to pay the CEO $1.1 million and stop outbound sales.
Did you hear that guys, the main stream bloggers will not pick that up THEY STOPPED OUTBOUND SALES OF PREMIUM NAMES.
They had 13 sales people whose only job was selling premium names in 2015 and it didn't work. These sales people could negotiate the price given they own them and had millions to choose from, a big advantage but it was not financially viable; endusers were not interested.
So a $10million operating loss. They are one of the biggest pure play new gTLDs company and they are hurting like many of them. Will be sold for cents on the dollar within 2 years. Their only hope is .vip launches next month in China.
Invested? Strong sell.
Announced today by the CFO reporting 2015 audited accounts to the London Stock Exchange

 

[DomainVP]

Oh come on there's been loads and loads of big sales and you know it.

Nobody said that there weren't valuable gTLDs, and some good sales. "Loads and loads," is an exaggeration at best.

The only value of these domains are as domain hacks for highly searched phrases. How many of those can be made? Not many.

The problem is that the sale of a few good names will not ever justify the operation of an entire registry.

Also the problem about some of these 'big sales' is that they were directly from the registry, some being sold at conventions as promotion with 5-10 year payment plans.

This was a non-issue when they launched, and here almost 2 years later... still pretty irrelevant, with registries trying to shuffle around resources to mitigate losses.

 

[Silentptnr]

Average people barely know .co, .info, and .biz.. Imagine how long till they know .whoknowswhat.

I just think that odds are, it will take a long long time, if ever, for new tlds to take off.. Now, with all the premium pricing its even crazier.

What business has very few customers, keeps expensive infrastructure, but raises prices 1000%?

Usually I see that pattern in companies that are in the nfl (not for long) club.

 

[garptrader]

Yes, starting 2014 there were already millions and millions of aftermarket domains for sale. Industry turnover was 1-2%. In what other industry can you sit on more than 95% of your inventory and not go bust? So why did we need more extensions? Well, we didn't. While low-budget developers and end users might have complained about all the short .COM domains being taken, so what. A real estate developer who wants to build a condo or office complex in a prime location is going to have to pay a lot more than $10 for the property. The fact that industry turnover was so low was actually an indication of a lack of demand for aftermarket domains, not the need for more extensions. So now we have added another ~15 million aftermarket domains in two years. Who is going to buy them? How many years of end user aftermarket purchases will it take to absorb all that inventory? One new TLD every couple years OK but a thousand new TLDs in two years is unnecessary.

 

[bmugford]

people like me. New gTLDs solve that problem, though it could have been implemented better.

Really? Where are all the great new gTLD at reasonable prices? They hardly exist.

Most desirable terms are registry held for high registration and/or renewal fees. I don't see many problems being solved with the new gTLD program, other than how to make ICANN a bunch of money.

Brad

 

[garptrader]

DomainInvesting.com just highlightedh a nTLD myths busters video sponsored by 101Domains. One of the major selling points of the new TLDs is keyword availability "because all the good .COMs are taken". Well now that we have 16 million new TLDs mostly registered by domainers and many more with expensive premiums or renewals, do the new TLDs really offer keyword availability for a typical .COM registration fee? Not at all. To get a decent keyword in most any TLD, you are going to have to pay a premium price. So would you rather pay a premium for a .COM or a .XYZ? TLDs like .Net, .CO, .TV offer a more brandable and recognizable TLD at a pricepoint less than the .COM but not as ridiculous-looking as many new TLDs. Regardless selling any alternate extension is not an easy task. I see no evidence yet that bulk buying of new TLDs is going to turn out to be a good investment. The more logical alternative is that buyers go to two-word .COMs or short brandables.

 

[Silentptnr]

Fact is, we will probably all be dead and gone before the new gTLDs become mainstream. I cannot think of one new gTLD, including club and xyz, that are worth much either retail or wholesale. And interest seems to be deteriorating.

Gen.xyz Alexa stats: Down 48,000 positions since January
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gen.xyz

Nic.club Alext stats: Down 84,000 positions since January
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nic.club

After an initial jump, even these new gTLD's that showed some potential are losing ground. Little marketing, no major sites using them, and little aftermarket sales.

I'm not downing the new gTLDs, just looking at them like an investor. I don't see any reason to believe they would be the best investment for my money. I could buy com, net, org, co, info, biz, ccTLDs and so on.

I do have a handful of new gTLD domains and I like them. I think they have potential mostly for development. But make no mistake, I will drop them like a hot potato if I don't sell or develop them.

 

[Recons.Com]

You are completely right, these prices are ridiculous. Put yourself in the shoes of an average person looking for a domain on Nodaddy and being presented a choice of vanity alternative extensions at those prices. What will they think ?
Does that lend the new extensions any credibility ? I don't think so. It reinforces the status of .com and other mainstream extensions as legitimate and suggests new extensions are ripoffs period. There is nothing to understand here.

The gTLD program is supposed to bring availability of good keywords to the masses but this is hardly happening. It's not because domainers snatched all of them (they can't since there are too many). It's because the registries aka the new domainers are hoarding them.
They are responsible for their own demise.

Hopefully they'll think "wow, and here I thought .com/.org/.net versions were expensive. Let me improve on my offer".

 

[garptrader]

Alice - you obviously have not seen what companies actually spend. $1500 to $5000 for a domain is nothing compared to what companies spend on other operating expenses (yet most of my domains are priced $1500 or less). I am a financial professional who has worked in various companies - seeing the invoices and financial statements from inside.. $250-$400/hour for a lawyer is typical which even for a small business will translate into five-figure invoices; for a large business six figures. In a year's time a whole lot more. IT professionals bill at $90-$200/hour so small projects can easily run five figures; large company projects such as sytems implementations where several IT and financial professionals are involved - six figures. An audit even for a small business is well into five-figures. Travel for a few execs for a conference or off-site business meeting with a vendor or client - low five figures between last-minute airfare, hotels, rental car, meals, etc. I have seen companies with private planes - six-figure maintenance bills plus pilot expenses and fuel which is a lot more than filling up the tank in your car. Let's not forget the lease payments on a seven-figure financing. A Christmas party even for a small office will run more than the cost of a typical domain yet which has more potential impact on the business? A software license renewal like QuickBooks will also run more than the cost of a typical domain. I recall one client where I saw their Adwords spend and it amazed me to see the CPC they were paying to get potential customers to their site. I have no idea what the conversion rate was on that campaign but they could have easily spent five figures on a domain name which might have been a more effective use of marketing resources.

Again, a high $XXX to low $XXXX domain price is easily affordable for most businesses. They just do not have the mindset of why a domain should cost that much - because you can register a domain for $10. There have been .XYZ promos for a $1. So why would anyone invest in .XYZ domain names if most anybody who would consider buying a .XYZ domain is doing so because they just want to launch a hobby site for a $1?

If you sell online, where do you direct potential customers to? The domain name. What appears on the business card of a sales or marketing professional? The domain name. If your business is using Adwords to bring traffic to your site and there are other advertisers for that same keyword, what is used to distinguish your business from the others using similar ad copy? The domain name. So yes you can register a crap domain for $10 but it will cost your business a whole lot more than what you think you are saving.

 

[Alice Wonder Miscreations]

I wonder why they couldn't just have an open tld where you can pick what is to the right and left of the dot? I guess ICANN wouldn't make as much money that way?

Seems like technologically it would be possible.

Technically speaking - all domain names end with a . it is just left off because it is always there.

That last invisible dot is present in zone files though, and represents the root zone.

When you query a name to resolve it, the recursive resolver first asks the root zone, which then tells the recursive resolver to ask the zone identified by the domain to the left of the dot, and the root zone tells the recursive resolver where the authoritative nameserver is for that domain. That's the TLD.

The recursive resolver then asks that namerserver, and it tells the recursive resolver to go ask at the authoritative nameserver for the domain to the left of its dot, and where it is.

The nature of how DNS works is right to left, you can't have arbitrary domains at the right side of the last dot we see without making an entry for them in the root nameservers - and that's what ICANN does when it creates a new TLD.

The owner of the authoritative DNS server pointed to by the root nameserver thus has authority over all of its sub-domains.

That's why we can't just make up words to go on the right side of the dot. We would have to completely redesign how DNS works.

 

[DNScholar]

If regularly making such losses than better to get of business.

 

[Rick Ace]

At this point, the only thing keeping most new namespaces alive are aspiring domainers and savvy endusers. But these are also the people who will reap the benefits of the keyword-rich new gTLDs.

At the end, you admit that there is an undeniable market for these domains. It may be smaller or larger than what is expected, but the point is that there already is a market for these new gTLDs. It's safe to say that many won't last. But the more popular new gTLDs are not only here to stay, but are also starting to pick up on developed sites.

Just searching through Google for a certain topic now leads me to a few sites based on .xyz. And Google has stated it wouldn't discriminate search results based on TLD.

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

Since you couldnt afford travel.agency or pc.guru we have been waiting for your next 2 .adventures
I see travel.agency is just a blank page with for sale in the whois.
So it was sold to another investor
Someone has a nice landing for sale page at pc.guru
After all the pumping you did, arent you glad you didnt buy those.?

88% of these new extensions will fail
.info is still a flop .horse will be no different.
Any idea what your gonna bid on next ?
Hopefully .drama comes out soon sounds like the perfect ext for a few people here at np

 

[Silentptnr]

Hahaha. What we need is a second round of new gTLDs. Is anyone seriously thinking we need more of these spam infested junk names. Go .horse newly named .nag.

Won't affect me either way I don't think. I just know that it's hard enough to sell .com domains, so I can't imagine how hard it is selling new gtlds. I wonder how the registries feel when they look at their reports:

Income: 0.00
Expenses: 5,000,000
Assets: .horse, .tattoo, .shoes, .rodeo
Liabilities: Our investors (forget them, they'll never see their money)

 

[Brandon.Domains]

Thanks for the tip - I've just shortened them!

Just kidding of course!

It's not unusual for new companies to operate at a financial loss in the beginning. They can raise money by giving up parts of their company to private investors in tranches. First, they have to give up more of their company for less money but as revenue grows, they have to give up less and less for more and more funds. And they don't actually have to make a profit during that time. Believe me, investors are no fools - otherwise they would have no money to invest.

Also, they have a lot of virtual assets (premium domains and gTLDs). You'd be surprised how long companies can stay in business at an operational loss before they eventually start making a profit and take off.

Brandon

 

[betthelot]

And 10 million operational loss in a year is a relatively small amount for a company of this size. They aren't big but they aren't small either.

Let some heads roll, get more funding, streamline things, cut costs and change a few things around. Next year it may look completely different.

Brandon

You need to do a bit of research - its market cap is £65 million at todays stock price. Cash reserves £30million. Growth of names less than 10%.
This is what the company predicted in 2014 make £2.5 million in 2015 increasing to £5.5 million in 2016 and £11million in 2017 by 2020 that the market cap would be at least £1000million.
Since then shares have halved and I think they are still over valued. Never issued a dividend.
Sounds like a pig of a stock. Yeah sounds so easy cut costs more funding, in fact I have it on good authority if you invest £500,000 in them you can get a seat on the board. Wait until the share price is halved again then it would be worth jumping in

 

[dordomai]

Thats exactly how they came up with what they thought the company would be worth in 2020. They assumed getting 10% of versigns market share.

Since they have approx. 20% market share they thought nGTLDs 50% of .com business by 2020.

I think it was the founder or chairman who had claimed that .com would be dead within 10 years. They might have really believed this.

This shows how overly optimistic they were.

 

[betthelot]

Since they have approx. 20% market share they thought nGTLDs 50% of .com business by 2020.

I think it was the founder or chairman who had claimed that .com would be dead within 10 years. They might have really believed this.

This shows how overly optimistic they were.

Hes the guy who did say dot com will be dead in 10years and walked away in January with $1.1million having been ousted by the other board members. He gets $1.1million and the investors are left with a bag of spam invested names

 

[betthelot]

Many "domainers" have gone far enough to lead successful lives and have tremendous influence in the industry. There's no need to be so pessimistic.

Domains are part of the free open market and domainers are a huge part of it. Don't underestimate their voice.

There is no hope for you Rick - you just read what you want to believe - how you interpreted my post as me underestimating domainers voice or their part they play isn't huge; only you and your maker will know.

 

[Kate]

It certainly creates a tense market and again it is downright criminal imho. Failures are going to bring instability to the DNS at the expense of the registrants.
Have you noticed that when they used to release extensions one by one (about one per year or so) - they weren't successful either. You know what they say: insanity is doing the same thing over and again - and expecting different results.
Competition is good, but what we have is not competition but chaos. The whole program is poorly thought out.

I have a better idea: any TLD applicant should go through a 'prerelease' phase where they would solicit paid pre-registrations from end users. For example if they get 10K paid pre-registrations @ $10 a pop - then the TLD could be deemed financially viable and approved for delegation since it has established the existence of a market before even being launched.
If they fail => back to square one, review the business proposal and try again.

Pros: We would have more financial security thus more stability, fewer zombie TLDs, less spam and probably more bona fide development.
Cons: Icann and the registries stand to make less money in the process. This is the biggest problem.

Optional: require that applicants pass drug and alcohol tests...

 

[Silentptnr]

Example...Today, for a project, I bought:
internet.gd - $29 p/yr

I could have chosen:
internet.build - $4,499 p/yr
internet.car - $2,590 p/yr
internet.cars - $2,590 p/yr
internet.courses - $2,999 p/yr
internet.degree - $2,999 p/yr
internet.desi - $6,999 p/yr
internet.family - $2,999 p/yr
internet.fashion - $1,249 p/yr
internet.film - $2,999 p/yr
internet.lgbt - $4,999 p/yr
internet.market - $2,999 p/yr
internet.ngo - $6,999 p/yr
internet.physio - $1,249 p/yr
internet.rodeo - $1,249 p/yr
internet.shiksha - $6,999 p/yr
internet.xyz - $12,999 p/yr

and so on..all very expensive.

These prices are ridiculous. I don't see anyone buying them. And by the way, try searching a domain on one registrar, then go to another. The prices are very different.

GoDaddy
internet.build - $3,799 p/yr

UnitedDomains
internet.build - $4,499 p/yr

Dynadot
internet.build - $3.600 p/yr

NameCheap
internet.build - $4,095 p/yr

How's that? I can understand a dollar or two, but $600 per year different. Crazy stuff. I feel bad for new domainers and end users that don't know.

 

[Casey L]

When you buy a knockoff Burberry purse, it's always cheaper than the real thing. Off brand colas are $1.29 for 2 liters. If you want people to buy your product when it's of lesser quality and value, you can't charge 100x more than the real thing.

 

[dordomai]

.mobi failed because with good web design, the mobile site doesn't need a different url and maintenance is easier when you don't have a different url.

.travel probably failed because the market was too small with most travel companies already having a web presence. Travel also was significantly reduced, at least in the US, with the housing crash.

.jobs probably also failed because the market was too small.

Will some of the new gTLDs fail? Absolutely. They certainly won't all fail.

I don't know about .jobs but travel is one of the biggest markets online. If one of the biggest markets is not large enough all other markets won't be large enough either.

 

[Alice Wonder Miscreations]

Domainers need to face the reality that their trade is why there is demand for new gTLDs.

The hoarding by domainers has created a demand for additional supply, that is why we want new gTLDs.

I'm not supporting the premium names, I'm disgusted with how the registries are behaving.
I'm not supporting the sheer quantity that ICANN is approving - it is too many too fast.

But I am sick and tired of spending hours looking for domain names for a project just because the good ones on .com are all gone, with a very large chunk of them owned by domainers who haven't used them in years yet want insane prices for them.

And when I have contacted domainers to ask about buying them, I'm often met with high pressure sales tactics that make used car salesmen seem honest.

That's why I like the new gTLDs. Despite the fact that so many are premium, I can find good names without wasting hours of my time.

 

[garptrader]

New TLDs provide more choice for ow-budget developers or real students who want a domain for a project but cannot spend more than $25 on a domain name. So why should anyone buy domains in TLDs where the primary user is going to be low-budget?

On the other hand, end users need to wake up to the branding value of domains. They are marketing tools which can help promote a business' products and services. I am a financial professional so I see the thousands of dollars that even small businesses will spend on professional services, IT costs, marketing, travel, etc. Then they cannot fathom why they should spend more than $50 on a domain name. Yet they pay the pay attorneys $300/hour, their IT consultants $100/hour, will spend five figures to send a few execs to a meeting for a few days.

A friend of mine wanted to open a small restaurant here in West Palm Beach and inquired about a place that does not even have seating space - just kitchen space and a window to show items for sale, and interact with customers walking down the streets of downtown. They wanted $17,000/month for rent. Perhaps that price was negotiable but how many empanadas do you have to sell at $5 each to pay the rent when there are dozens of competing restaurants in the area? And the ingredients and staff are not free.

 

[Alice Wonder Miscreations]

There is a difference between hoarding and collecting. Hoarding implies keeping with no intention of selling. Collecting is a better term. When there is value in a commodity such as domain names, investors, collectors, and enthusiasts register names they feel are unique, attractive, or valuable. Very much the same as fine art or stocks. If you wanted to buy a stock, you would pay todays market value. You wouldn't get the IPO price. If you wanted to buy a Picasso, you would pay much more than the cost of the canvas and paint.

You should understand the difference. There is nothing illegal, immoral or unfair with collecting domain names for investment. There are penny stocks and stocks that cost 100k per share. You start where you can afford to start.

Stop painting a picture that demonstrates a lack of understanding of how commodity markets work. Getting online isn't even free. Everything costs money and domainers don't set prices, the market does.

To me the difference is only semantic because the result is the same - those who create content have to effectively pay a huge tax to someone else to get use of a decent name.

The problem is there isn't much incentive for domainers to reduce prices when they don't sell because a few good high value sales covers the continued registration for lots of domains they don't sell. So there's really not much incentive to let the market demand determine a fair price.