 |
||||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
View Comments:
threaded view | newest first | oldest first
 User Rank
Evangelist Karl, the debate on the new gTLD is interesting, but has anyone looked at the impact to the average Internet user? Maybe I'm missing something, but there is a learning curve for the user that may be a little more difficult to climb. For example, will it be .GE or .GeneralElectric, or .Pepsi or .Pepsico. Potentially, it may be both. Even if we have the suffix correct, will we be bounced if the complete URL is incorrect: diapers.P&G or diaper.P&G? I wonder if anyone has any insights into how this will affect a user trying to go directly to a site.  User Rank
Blogger Ryck - there's been a lot of discussion, too much, perhaps, about how the user experience is going to work. Here are a couple of thoughts: Google Chrome already bundles search directly into the address bar. So, typing hitachi into the address bar will bring you to a search for the most prominent domain name, be that hitachi.com or bio.hitachi (for its biomedical products). Other browsers have tweaks and extensions that provide this same feature. I believe that we'll be seeing this more and more, such that remembering a URL will no longer be a requirement to use the web. I spend a fair amount of time training people on various computer-related topics. A significant number of people will go to Google and type facebook.com into the search box. So, why the new domains if it doesn't matter to end-users? There's a political discussion that I'll leave aside for now. The new TLDs provide better brand control overall, allowing companies to occupy both namespaces and mindspaces at the same time. By the way, Ad Age reports that Pepsi has decided to bail on .pepsi, with no reason given. They further report that Google is jumping in, Facebook is not.  User Rank
Evangelist NO RATINGS I agree with Karl that many users take advantage of Google search for a domain without knowing they can simply type it in the address bar. I think users will be mostly unaffected at least until they notice these new formats. I think they're a silly idea (and overpriced) but I may be eating my words in a year or so after they become commonplace.  User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS I'm starting to come around to the notion that the new gTLDs are a good idea -- for companies that have large enough marketing budgets that the $180,000 pricetag is small change. If a company has thousands of domains already, this is a way to make sense of them. I'm also interested in the plain-English non-branded gTLDs that will emerge. Might we see gTLDs like .blog and .books? User Rank
Evangelist NO RATINGS I'm far less interested in the generic branded domains. I don't know if I want to keep track of .blog .book .app. One thing is certain with these changes, search will become really important to find exactly the right site... User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS @tinym - I think the generic generic TLDs (so to speak) would be useful in a world where short, human-readable URLs are important: In social networks, email signatures, and newspapers and magazines. I was actually thinking about this in regard to my own personal site. I have mitchwagner.com as a business-card site; it has a bit of biographical information, links to The CMO Site and my social media. Maybe one day somebody will start registering common last names as gTLDs. Then (if I move faster than the other Mitch Wagners) I could be just mitch.wagner on the Internet. That would be more elegant than mitchwagner.com. I have an infrequently updated personal blog. Now it's at mitchwagner.com/blog. mitchwagner.blog would be more elegant. Similarly, I sell ebooks (well, one ebook so far). Right now it's at mitchwagner.com/books, but mitchwagner.books would, again, be a bit more elegant. These are small changes. But that .com suffix is basically four wasted characters; anything that can be done to actually make the TLD even minimally useful is a step forward. I have not yet thought this through to how generic generic TLDs would apply to large brands. One problem to be faced: Previous recent attempts at gTLDs, like .info, have become disreputable. How to avoid the same problem with the new batch.  User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS @tinym - I think the generic generic TLDs (so to speak) would be useful in a world where short, human-readable URLs are important: In social networks, email signatures, and newspapers and magazines. To counter-point: Mobile has many other options to skip past the URL; check-ins with links and QR codes (which takes the user to a mobile version of the site, even better!). Email signatures have no need for special URL's as they're either hyper-links or a simple matter of copy-and-paste. Newspapers and magazines needn't concern themselves much with the URL either as it's simply a matter of punching the subject or key words into a search engine. We have so many other options available, the new domains just seem a waste of money.  User Rank
Proponent NO RATINGS @Mitch: Generic TLD's seem to be much more appealing but wouldn't they limit use?For example, like you mentioned using mitch.wagner as your domain. What would another person who goes by the same name do if he wanted to register a domain? Currently, he has the option to opt for other suffixes while keeping the first part constant. I don't that will be available later. I wouldn't want my domain to be read as sohaib.masood123 etc. User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS @sohaibmasood - Generic TLD's seem to be much more appealing but wouldn't they limit use?For example, like you mentioned using mitch.wagner as your domain. What would another person who goes by the same name do if he wanted to register a domain? Currently, he has the option to opt for other suffixes while keeping the first part constant. "Mitch Wagner" is a relatively uncommon name, but there is another one not too far from me. He's a prominent lawyer. I'm sure he's not my biggest fan after I grabbed the mitchwagner.com domain and all the Google juice on the name as well. I frequently see other Mitch Wagners pop up in my Google Alerts vanity search. I wondered for a while why they were all athletes (when I am so very not) but then I concluded it's because high school athletics is the most likely opportunity most people have to achieve fame.  User Rank
Proponent NO RATINGS I understand the desire to roll out new TLDs every few years, and in some cases, the new TLDs are quite useful: the .xxx extension debate that's been going on for years, for instance -- there's no doubt that .xxx would indicate exactly what is going on with a particular site so the consumer will not be confused before clicking on something they may or may not want to see. On the other hand, many .tlds that have rolled out in recent years have been used for anything but their intended purposes, such as the .us extension which is largely ignored by the big boys, other than for sites such as delicio.us. I could go on and on: .cc, .ws (arguably one of the most ignored extensions), and various other country domains which hardly anyone uses, at least in English-speaking countries. And that could be a good thing. Sure, it may be nice to have an extension that matches what your brand is about (ourbrandfood.organic, for instance), but at the end of the day, is it really better than a .com or whatever extension is currently used for your business? Is it worth the megabucks it could potentially cost to secure the best of the best vanity tlds? Are new TLDs really worth megabucks? Everyone thought .mobi was going to be the next big thing 5 or so years ago, and bidding wars went into place to secure good .mobis when they was launched. Most of those .mobis were dumped within a couple years. User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS @infinity - As I recall, .mobi sites were certified as WAP compliant by the organization that ran .mobi. When WAP became obsolete, it dragged .mobi down with it. User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS @infinity - .xxx is controversial among pornograpy opponents; they say it legitimizes porn. Even some of the larger porn sites don't like it. They say they have to now register yet another domain to prevent against cybersquatting. And legitimate businesses have to do the same. These are many of the same complaints raised against the new gTLDs. User Rank
Proponent NO RATINGS @mitch: Ah, good point about WAP and mobile phones. I hadn't thought of that. And as for .xxx and site owners dreading the dealing with cybersquatters, well, that's exactly what could potentially happen with any new domain extension and any business' site (oh no, need to prevent squatters!) User Rank
Evangelist NO RATINGS Excellent points all around. I haven't thought of the new domain extensions in this way before now. Thank you. I hope to see your new domains sometime in the future, perhaps when they're more affordable for regular folks (you know, in the $10,000 range). I'm still not sure I agree we actually need them but I can understand how they might be used in the future... User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS ICANN extended the deadline to April 20, due to a problem with its network. It was a "possible glitch" that allowed a lmited number of users to view each others' details. User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS The Guardian reassures us that no evil-doers were involved, just ordinary software fubar. User Rank
Blogger NO RATINGS Good to know the evil-doers were thwarted. |
|
|
|
quick poll
CMO videos
      Community Is 'Where It's At'
If brands want their names to stick they need to ... 2:27 (11) comments  leadership reports
Getting the Most from Mobile Marketing
The CMO Site, The CMO Site   like us on facebook
  seven days of education
|
||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
Tweet This